## Facts

- Between 1965 and 1970, the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired more than 300 ancient artifacts through New York art dealers for approximately $1.5 million.
- Turkey alleged the objects were illicitly excavated in Turkey around 1966 from burial sites and smuggled out in violation of Turkish patrimony and export laws.
- Turkey asserted its laws vested ownership of undiscovered antiquities in the Turkish state and prohibited unauthorized export.
- The museum allegedly kept the collection largely nonpublic for years and publicly displayed it in 1984 as the “East Greek Treasure,” making its location known.
- In 1987, Turkey sued in federal court seeking return of the artifacts, alleging Turkey retained title and the museum’s possession was wrongful.
- The museum moved for summary judgment based on New York’s three-year limitations period for replevin/conversion and the equitable defense of laches.

## Issues

1. Whether Turkey’s replevin/conversion claims were time-barred under N.Y. CPLR 214(3) given the museum’s long possession, or instead accrued only upon Turkey’s demand and the museum’s refusal.
2. Whether laches barred the action because Turkey unreasonably delayed and the museum suffered material prejudice from the delay.
3. Whether disputed facts regarding Turkey’s knowledge/diligence and the museum’s alleged prejudice precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied the museum’s motion for summary judgment.
- Applying New York’s demand-and-refusal rule, the court held the limitations period against a good-faith possessor generally begins when the owner demands return and the possessor refuses.
- The court concluded there were genuine disputes of material fact concerning when Turkey learned of the museum’s possession, whether any delay was unreasonable, and whether the museum suffered material prejudice.
- Because laches and related equitable defenses turned on contested facts, they could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, a true owner’s replevin claim against a good-faith possessor typically accrues upon demand for return and refusal, not at the time of the theft or initial acquisition.
- Replevin and conversion actions to recover chattels are governed by a three-year statute of limitations under N.Y. CPLR 214(3), measured (in demand-and-refusal cases) from demand and refusal.
- Laches requires both unreasonable delay and material prejudice; alleged prejudice such as lost witnesses or documents is fact-dependent and commonly unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment when disputed.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact about diligence/knowledge, delay, and prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Turkey’s recovery action to proceed, holding that New York’s demand-and-refusal accrual rule and disputed factual questions regarding delay and prejudice prevented the museum from obtaining summary judgment on statute-of-limitations and laches defenses.


Republic of Turkey v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 762 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)