Zuckerman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186

Paul and Alice Leffmann, German Jews, owned Picasso’s "The Actor" (purchased 1912); fled Nazi Germany, later Italy, then Switzerland and Brazil.
In June 1938 the Leffmanns sold the painting for $12,000 to Paris dealer Käte Perls (acting for Rosenberg/Perls); proceeds helped fund their emigration.
The painting traveled to the U.S., was sold in New York in 1941, donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in 1952, and has been publicly exhibited; Leffmann appeared in the Met provenance since at least 1967.
No demand for return was made by the Leffmanns or their heirs until 2010; Zuckerman (great‑grandniece and ancillary administratrix of Alice Leffmann’s estate) sued in 2016 for replevin/conversion alleging the 1938 sale was void as made under duress.
The district court dismissed for failure to allege duress; on appeal the Second Circuit affirmed on the independent ground that Zuckerman’s claim is barred by laches and held the HEAR Act does not preclude equitable defenses like laches.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claim is barred by laches	Zuckerman did not unreasonably delay given wartime disruption and postwar circumstances	Met: >70 years elapsed from sale; delay was unreasonable and prejudiced Met	Held: Laches bars the claim — delay unreasonable and prejudicial
Whether laches can be raised despite HEAR Act	HEAR Act’s six‑year discovery period preempts time‑related equitable defenses	Met: HEAR Act does not eliminate equitable defenses; Congress removed explicit bar to laches from final bill	Held: HEAR Act does not preclude laches; equitable defenses remain available
Whether the 1938 sale was void for duress under New York law	Sale was made under duress because Leffmanns sold to fund escape from persecution	Met: Even if duress were alleged, plaintiff’s delay and prejudice to Met bar relief	Held: Court did not reach merits of duress because laches independently bars claim
Whether laches can be decided on the pleadings	Zuckerman: factual issues make laches inappropriate on motion to dismiss	Met: Facts pleaded show undue delay and obvious prejudice allowing resolution as matter of law	Held: Laches may be decided on the pleadings here because prejudice and lack of diligence are apparent

Merrill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase Ltd., 337 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (laches requires unreasonable delay and prejudice)
SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (U.S. 2017) (equitable laches protects defendants against prejudicial delay)
Petrella v. Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (U.S. 2014) (generally limits laches against claims governed by a statutory limitations scheme)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Matter of Peters v. Sotheby’s Inc., 34 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (laches can be resolved as a matter of law where delay and prejudice are apparent)
DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994) (New York’s demand‑and‑refusal rule for stolen art provenance)