Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc.
62f4th64
2d Cir.2023Background
- The dispute concerns the "Stargazer," a rare 6,000-year-old Kiliya-type marble figurine crafted in Anatolia (modern Turkey) that surfaced in the U.S. art market by 1961 and was publicly displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art for decades.
- Turkey sued in 2017 under its patrimony laws (a 1906 decree), asserting replevin, conversion, and a declaratory judgment that the idol was found in and exported from Turkey after 1906.
- The artifact passed through dealers and collectors (Klejman → Martins/Guennol Collection → Buttercup Beta → Merrin Gallery → Michael Steinhardt), and was consigned to Christie’s in 2017; its pre-1961 provenance is unknown (unstratified).
- After an eight-day bench trial, the district court found Turkey failed to prove ownership by a preponderance and entered judgment vesting title in Steinhardt; the court also held Turkey’s claims were barred by laches because Turkey unreasonably delayed asserting its claim.
- The Second Circuit explained the district court applied the wrong standard when assessing Turkey’s initial burden (it required preponderance rather than the lower "threshold showing" required by New York law), but affirmed on the separate ground that laches barred Turkey’s claim due to (i) knowledge/awareness in the 1990s, (ii) over 25 years’ delay, and (iii) prejudice from the deaths of key witnesses and loss of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden in stolen-art claims | Turkey: it made sufficient factual showing that the idol likely originated in Turkey post-1906, shifting burden to defendants. | Defendants: claimant must meet threshold before burden shifts; proof lacking. | Court: New York law requires only a "threshold showing" before burden shifts (Bakalar/Lubell), but district court applied preponderance in error. Affirmed on laches, not on ownership. |
| Whether Turkey proved ownership | Turkey: provenance gaps and dealer history support inference of post-1906 export from Turkey. | Defendants: record supports alternative scenarios (earlier discovery) and Turkey failed to prove on the record. | District court found evidence evenly balanced and insufficient under preponderance; Second Circuit did not resolve whether threshold was met because laches dispositive. |
| Laches — notice / duty to investigate | Turkey: sovereigns should not be required to investigate unknown artifacts; it only learned fully in 2017 via Christie’s catalogue. | Defendants: publications, ministry research, and museum labels in the 1990s put Turkey on notice, so delay was inexcusable. | Court: Turkey "should have known" in the 1990s and unreasonably delayed; no improper added duty—"should have known" sufficed. |
| Laches — prejudice and diligence | Turkey: deaths of witnesses do not prove prejudice; Steinhardt would have bought even if warned. | Defendants: loss of Martins/Klejman deprived defense of key testimony; Steinhardt reasonably investigated provenance. | Court: delay prejudiced defendants (dead witnesses); Steinhardt’s pre-purchase diligence was reasonable; laches bars Turkey’s claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311 (1991) (New York Court of Appeals on burden shift in stolen-art cases)
- Bakalar v. Vavra, 619 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2010) (claimant must make a threshold showing before burden shifts to possessor)
- Ikelionwu v. United States, 150 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1998) (elements of laches: knowledge, delay, prejudice)
- Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019) (delay can be ‘‘inordinate’’ and cause prejudice in art claims)
- Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 1996) (laches requires prejudice to defendant)
- Stone v. Williams, 873 F.2d 620 (2d Cir. 1989) (death of witnesses can constitute prejudice)
- Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC, 984 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2021) (deferential review of district court evidentiary rulings)
- Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) (clear-error review of factual findings after bench trial)
- Banker v. Nighswander, Martin & Mitchell, 37 F.3d 866 (2d Cir. 1994) (deference to district court credibility findings)