This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.

Case Summary

Mirvish v. Mott

Mirvish v. Mott, 75 AD 3d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010), reversing Surrogate’s Court; 18 NY 3d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 2012), rev’d, reinstating Surrogate’s Court ruling; 969 NE 2d 1164 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 2012), denying reconsideration.

Although at issue in this case was the ownership of a Jacques Lipchitz sculpture, its significance is that it marked the first opportunity since the 1991 Guggenheim vs. Lubell case for New York’s high court to clarify the State’s demand and refusal rule, which holds that . . .

Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.