## Facts

- Paul Friedrich and Alice Leffmann, German-Jewish collectors, owned Pablo Picasso’s *The Actor* (c. 1904–05).
- The Leffmanns fled Nazi Germany to Italy in 1937.
- In 1938, as anti-Jewish measures intensified in Italy, they sold *The Actor* to art dealers to raise funds to flee fascist Italy.
- The painting later changed hands and was donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in 1952.
- The Met publicly catalogued the painting for decades; until 2011, the Met’s published provenance allegedly misstated that the Leffmanns sold the work before Nazi persecution began.
- The Leffmanns survived World War II; Paul died in 1956 and Alice in 1966.
- In 2010, Laurel Zuckerman (as estate representative and heir) demanded return of the painting; the Met refused.
- In 2016, Zuckerman sued for replevin, conversion (seeking substantial damages), and declaratory relief on the theory that the 1938 sale was void due to duress.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; Zuckerman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (HEAR Act) precludes the equitable defense of laches in Nazi-era art recovery actions.
2. If laches remains available, whether the plaintiff’s claims were barred by unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice to the museum.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on laches grounds rather than the district court’s duress analysis.
- The court held the HEAR Act does not displace equitable defenses and does not preempt laches.
- The court held the plaintiff’s delay in asserting the claim was unreasonable given the public, long-standing possession and decades of inaction.
- The court held the Met was prejudiced by the passage of time, including loss of evidence and unavailability of witnesses, and by reliance interests arising from decades of custody, exhibition, and stewardship.

## Legal Principles

- The HEAR Act establishes a uniform limitations period for certain Nazi-era art claims but does not, by silence, abrogate equitable defenses such as laches.
- Laches may bar claims even when a statutory limitations period is satisfied, where (1) the plaintiff’s delay is unreasonable and (2) the defendant is prejudiced by that delay.
- Prejudice supporting laches includes evidentiary impairment from the passage of time (e.g., deceased witnesses, missing documents) and reliance-based harms from long, public possession.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the HEAR Act does not eliminate laches and affirmed dismissal because the estate’s decades-long delay in pursuing recovery of *The Actor* was unreasonable and materially prejudiced the museum’s ability to defend and its settled reliance on long-standing public ownership.


Zuckerman v. Metro. Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019)