From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richard L. Feigen Company v. Weil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 1993
191 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Feigen, the seller of a drawing that both parties assumed to be a Matisse, but which turned out to be a forgery, argued that the buyer, an art dealer, acted with conscious ignorance because it failed to authenticate the drawing before purchasing it (id. at *6).

Summary of this case from Jerome M. Eisenberg, Inc. v. Hall
See 1 Summary

Opinion

March 16, 1993

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on May 7, 1992, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Moskowitz, J., without costs and without disbursements. No opinion.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Summaries of

Richard L. Feigen Company v. Weil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 1993
191 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Feigen, the seller of a drawing that both parties assumed to be a Matisse, but which turned out to be a forgery, argued that the buyer, an art dealer, acted with conscious ignorance because it failed to authenticate the drawing before purchasing it (id. at *6).

Summary of this case from Jerome M. Eisenberg, Inc. v. Hall
Case details for

Richard L. Feigen Company v. Weil

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. FEIGEN COMPANY, Respondent, v. FRANK A. WEIL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 16, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 683

Citing Cases

Jerome M. Eisenberg, Inc. v. Hall

Plaintiff alleges that due to the "mutual mistake" of the parties regarding whether the items were ancient,…

1 Citing Cases