How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[David Atkatz]

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

If the monies went back into the libraries coffers, I don't really think it is..........and it would be impossible after all these years to prove otherwise.

As for the contention, nothing was ever deaccessioned, I think that's something else you can never prove. As much as you like to believe, an actual deaccession (I'm sure I'm spelling it wrong every time I spell it) marking is more rare then not. Most don't bother with it when they sell stuff off.

Yes, it's the NYPL, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I think that's a speculative assertion.