Davis v. Carroll New York 2013 1) Facts a) See PDF 2) History a) Plaintiff files suit against defendant for conversion, replevin, unjust enrichment, and declaration of ownership. b) Defendant countersues for counterclaims for declaratory judgment and fraud. c) The plaintiff files a suit for summary judgment 3) Issues a) Was the expert testimony allowable? i) The expert testimony provided by the defendant was unusable based upon the expert’s method. His method of appraisal was not recognized by any official appraisal service. Because his testimony was created by his own account, then the testimony was crossed out. b) Was the defendant aware that the prices were suspicious i) The prices were outside the norm of prices used in the industry. The basement bottom prices should have put the buyer aware that the paintings were not being sold properly. c) Did Carroll do his due diligence i) Carroll did not do the due diligence required by the industry. The facts above should have made Carroll skeptical on the legitimacy of the deals. Carroll never went through and checked on who was the proper owner of the paintings. Had Carroll checked on the paintings, he would have learned that SOD was not the proper owner and the deals were fraudulent.