## Facts

- Marta Erika Rosenberg was an author of books about Oskar Schindler and the list of Jewish workers whose placement in Schindler’s factory helped save them during the Holocaust.
- After Oskar Schindler’s death, his widow, Emilie Schindler, became close friends with Rosenberg.
- Rosenberg claimed Emilie assigned to her the contents of Schindler’s “suitcase,” which contained numerous documents and photographs, including Schindler-related list materials.
- Emilie Schindler later executed a will naming Rosenberg as her sole heir.
- A different, allegedly authentic version of “Schindler’s List” surfaced through Nathan Stern, who asserted he received the document through family connected to Schindler’s accountant.
- Gary Zimet, a principal of M.I.T. Memorabilia (a dealer in historical items), was retained by Stern to find a buyer for the document.
- Rosenberg learned Zimet was attempting to sell the list and contacted him claiming she owned it as Emilie’s assignee and heir; Zimet disputed her claim and offered to sell the document to Rosenberg.
- Rosenberg sued in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking to stop (1) any sale or transfer of the physical document and (2) any publication of its contents, asserting ownership and copyright-based claims.
- The court initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing both sale of the document and publication of its contents pending a hearing.
- Rosenberg then moved for a preliminary injunction continuing the same restraints during the litigation.
- Defendants argued they intended only to sell the physical document (not publish it) and also contended that, even if publication occurred, the list’s contents were already known around the world, defeating any claim of protectable rights or harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Rosenberg met the requirements for a preliminary injunction—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities in her favor—to maintain the status quo by barring defendants from selling the list and publishing its contents during the action.
2. Whether defendants’ asserted intent to only sell the physical document, and their claim that the list’s contents were already widely known, defeated Rosenberg’s showing of threatened harm warranting injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted Rosenberg’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court continued the restraints previously imposed by the TRO, barring defendants from selling the document and from publishing (or facilitating publication of) its contents while the case proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction under New York law generally requires: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and (3) a balance of equities favoring the moving party.
- A court may issue injunctive relief to preserve the status quo when a disputed, unique item is at risk of being transferred to unknown hands, making later relief ineffective.
- On a motion for preliminary relief, the court assesses whether the moving party has shown a sufficient claim of right (including by assignment and inheritance) to justify interim protection pending a final determination.
- A defendant’s contention that information is publicly known does not automatically eliminate a plaintiff’s claimed rights in the challenged material or make threatened publication harmless for preliminary-injunction purposes.
- Where threatened sale or publication would materially change the parties’ positions before adjudication—particularly as to a singular, historically significant document—equitable considerations can favor temporary restraint during litigation.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court, New York County granted Rosenberg preliminary injunctive relief, keeping in place restraints that barred defendants from selling the disputed “Schindler’s List” document or publishing its contents, because Rosenberg made a sufficient showing at the interim stage that her claimed rights could be harmed in a way not readily repairable if the document were transferred or disseminated before the court resolved ownership and related claims.


Rosenberg v. Zimet, 913 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2010)