High Court Urged to Hear Nazi Art Theft Case, With Dealer Saying NY State Decisions Should Give Way
The Court of Appeals must review the lower state courts' rulings, Charron wrote, because they created "novel rules" of collateral estoppel and laches that could affect a wide variety of art ownership cases in New York.
February 11, 2020 at 06:35 PM
3 minute read
A London-based art dealer asked the New York Court of Appeals on Monday to hear his claim to a pair of century-old drawings by Austrian artist Egon Schiele, arguing that lower state courts' decisions would upend the New York art world if they were allowed to stand.
William Charron of Pryor Cashman, who is representing dealer Richard Nagy, argued that an earlier federal court case settled questions about rightful ownership of the drawings, which are part of a collection owned by a Jewish Austrian collector, Fritz Grunbaum, in the 1930s.
Grunbaum and his wife died in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and their heirs sued Nagy in 2015, claiming ownership of the drawings.
The heirs' lawyer, Raymond Dowd of Dunnington Bartholow & Miller, argued that Nazis stole Grunbaum's art collection during the war.
But Charron argued that the question of the collection's history was already settled by federal courts between 2005 and 2013, when Dowd and the heirs pursued the rights to another Schiele piece from the same collection. The federal ruling should apply to all the pieces in the collection, he wrote in Monday's petition.
In the earlier case, Bakalar v. Vavra, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the Nazis did not steal the drawing and that it was in the possession of Grunbaum's sister-in-law in the 1950s, when she sold it to a gallery. Charron represented the man who had bought the drawing in that case, too.
Charron emphasized in Monday's filing that the federal case involved "exhaustive international discovery," arguing that the federal ruling should apply to all the pieces in the collection, since there was little reason to believe they'd been split up. The Nagy case in state court, in contrast, never went to trial, Charron wrote.
The Court of Appeals must review the lower state courts' rulings, Charron wrote, because they created "novel rules" of collateral estoppel and laches that could affect a wide variety of art ownership cases in New York.
"The availability of the defenses of laches and collateral estoppel are critical to provide certainty to the New York marketplace, especially when dealing with collections of art and other property that may be sold in distinct parcels to multiple buyers," Charron wrote. He added that the fate of the rest of the collection—50 more Schiele drawings—was also thrown into uncertainty when the state and federal courts reached different conclusions.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel should have barred the re-litigation of issues settled in federal court, Charron argued, while Nagy's date of acquisition should have been irrelevant to his laches defense.
In response to a question about the appeal, Dowd said he is optimistic that the drawings will be auctioned at Christie's in November.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
With SDNY Stay Lifted, Sex Trafficking Civil Suit Against Vince McMahon, WWE Gets Green Light
3 minute readBig Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250