## Facts

- The dispute concerns an ancient Anatolian marble female idol of “Kiliya-type,” dating to at least 2200 B.C.E., associated with a workshop location in modern-day Turkey.
- Around 1961, American collectors Alastair and Edith Martin acquired the idol in New York from the J.J. Klejman Gallery.
- In 1966, the Martins loaned the idol to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it remained until 1993, then was returned to the Martins.
- Michael Steinhardt later acquired the idol and consigned it to Christie’s for sale in 2017.
- The Republic of Turkey asserted ownership under a 1906 Ottoman patrimony decree providing that movable antiquities within Ottoman territory were state property; Turkey claimed succession to that ownership interest.
- After learning of the planned 2017 auction, Turkey sued in federal court seeking to stop the sale and recover the idol; the auction was allowed to proceed while ownership was litigated.
- Turkey brought New York-law claims for conversion and replevin and sought declaratory relief vesting title in Turkey; defendants asserted defenses including statute of limitations and laches.
- Christie’s and Steinhardt counterclaimed for tortious interference (contract or prospective economic advantage) and sought a declaration that title vested in Steinhardt.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Turkey’s conversion and replevin claims based on statute of limitations, laches, or inability to show a legally cognizable ownership interest under Turkish patrimony law.
2. Whether Turkey was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims for tortious interference with contract or with prospective economic advantage under New York law.
3. Whether sealing/redaction of filings was warranted, and whether expert evidence should be excluded under Daubert.

## Decision

- Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Turkey’s claims was denied because genuine disputes of material fact remained, including disputes bearing on limitations, laches, provenance, and the application of Turkish law to title.
- Turkey’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaims was granted; the tortious-interference and declaratory counterclaims were dismissed.
- The parties’ sealing and extensive redaction requests were denied without prejudice for lack of sufficiently specific support.
- The court reserved decision on Turkey’s Daubert motion.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is unavailable where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact material to the claims or defenses.
- In a New York replevin/conversion action involving foreign cultural property, foreign law may govern whether the claimant has a property interest, while New York law governs the tort claims and defenses.
- Statute of limitations and laches defenses in cultural-property disputes are fact-intensive and may turn on what the claimant knew or reasonably should have known and whether delay caused prejudice.
- Under New York law, tortious interference claims require proof of the elements of the relevant tort, including causation and, for interference with prospective advantage, “wrongful means”; asserting and litigating a colorable claim of ownership, without independently wrongful conduct, does not satisfy that requirement on the record presented.
- Judicial documents are subject to a strong presumption of public access; sealing requires a particularized showing.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Turkey’s ownership-based claims for replevin and conversion to proceed to trial because material factual disputes precluded summary judgment for defendants, while dismissing defendants’ tortious-interference counterclaims at summary judgment and denying sealing requests without prejudice.


Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)