Republic of Turk. v. Christie's Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 17 Civ. 3086 (AJN) |
| Citation | 425 F.Supp.3d 204 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, v. CHRISTIE'S INC., et al., Defendants-Counterclaimants, Anatolian Marble Female Idol of Kiliya Type, Defendant-in-rem. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Frank Knight Lord, IV, Lawrence Michael Kaye, Howard Neil Spiegler, Jason Anthony D'Angelo, Patricia Moira Graham, Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.
Jennifer A. Morris, Lori Eden Burgess, Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC, Washington, DC, Thomas Russell Kline, Cultural Heritage Partners PLLC, New York, NY, for Defendant-Counterclaimant Christie's Inc.
Thomas Russell Kline, Cultural Heritage Partners PLLC, New York, NY, Jennifer A. Morris, Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Counterclaimant Michael Steinhardt.
The Republic of Turkey brings this case against Christie's and Michael Steinhardt, as well as the Idol—Defendant-in-rem Anatolian Marble Female Idol of Kiliya Type. This diversity action arises from the alleged unlawful excavation and smuggling of the Idol, a millennia-old cultural artifact that Turkey claims it owns pursuant to its patrimony law, out of Turkey. The Idol ultimately made its way into the hands of Steinhardt, a private collector in the United States. The Second Amended Complaint alleges New York state law claims of conversion and replevin and seeks a declaratory judgment that all right, title, and interest in and to the Idol is vested in Turkey. Dkt. No. 65. Christie's and Steinhardt have counterclaimed, alleging New York state law claims of tortious interference with contract, or, in the alternative, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and seek a declaratory judgment that all right, title, and interest in and to the Idol is vested in Steinhardt. Dkt. No. 122.
Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment—Christie's and Steinhardt's motion for summary judgment on Turkey's claims, Dkt. No. 190, and Turkey's motion for summary judgment on Christie's and Steinhardt's counterclaims, Dkt. No. 196—as well as Turkey's Daubert motion, Dkt. No. 194, and various requests made by the parties to file briefing papers and exhibits associated with these motions with redactions or entirely under seal. For the reasons that follow, Christie's and Steinhardt's summary judgment motion is DENIED, Turkey's summary judgment motion is GRANTED, and the parties' sealing requests are DENIED without prejudice. The Court reserves judgment on Turkey's Daubert motion.
The following facts are undisputed unless specifically noted. In or around 1961, Alastair and Edith Martin, American collectors, acquired the Idol, an Anatolian marble female Idol of Kiliya-type that dates to at least 2200 B.C.E. and, research suggests, may be even older, from J.J. Klejman Gallery. Dkt. No. 252 ¶¶ 1–2, 4–5. Kulaksizlar, located in modern-day Turkey, is the only workshop known to have produced Kiliya-type idols. Id. ¶ 3. In 1966, the Martins loaned the Idol, a part of their so-called "Guennol Collection," to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Id. ¶¶ 6, 33. Between 1966 and 1993, the Idol was on loan to the Met, id. ¶ 33, and in 1993, the Martins sought return of the Idol from the Met, id. ¶ 11. The Merrin Gallery ultimately received the Idol on July 16, 1993, and Steinhardt acquired the Idol from the Merrin Gallery on or around August 16, 1993. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. The Judy and Michael Steinhardt Collection subsequently loaned the Idol back to the Met in 1999. Id. ¶ 38. It remained on loan to the Met between 1999 and 2007. Id. ¶ 38.
Around March 2, 2017, Steinhardt consigned the Idol to Christie's for sale, and it was delivered to Christie's that same day. Id. ¶¶ 15–16. Christie's conducted provenance research and listed the Idol's provenance as tracing back to "1966 or prior," when it was acquired by the Martins. Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 21. Christie's listed the Idol, along with its provenance information, in the catalogue for its scheduled April 28, 2017 auction. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Around March 26, 2017, Turkey learned about the planned sale of the Idol. Id. ¶ 66. On April 19, 2017, Ertan Yalçin, then the Consul General from the Turkish Consulate General in New York, sent Christie's a letter claiming that the Idol is likely of Turkish origin, and, as such, is state property protected under Turkish law. Id. ¶ 26; Dkt. No. 38-9. Turkey claims ownership of the Idol under a 1906 Ottoman Decree.
Turkey commenced this diversity action on April 27, 2017 and immediately sought a temporary restraining order enjoining sale of the Idol at the scheduled April 28, 2017 auction. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. The Court denied that relief with the following conditions: 1) that Christie's "announce orally in advance of the auction that the Republic of Turkey has asserted a claim of ownership" over the Idol; and 2) that Christie's retain possession of the Idol for 60 days and "delay receipt of funds by any successful bidder" during that time. Dkt. No. 18 at 45:25–46:21. Prior to opening bidding on the Idol on April 28, 2017, Christie's read a statement setting forth these conditions and noting that the buyer would have a right of cancellation if not satisfied with the terms of the sale. Dkt. No. 252 ¶ 29. The Idol ultimately sold for a high bid of $12,700,000. Id. ¶ 30. The buyer (the "High Bidder"), however, never took possession of the Idol, though the parties contest whether he ultimately "canceled the purchase," or "withdrew from consummating the sale." Id. ¶¶ 31–32. The Idol remains in Christie's possession. Dkt. No. 252 ¶ 2.
On the day of the auction, The New York Times published an advertisement, or "advertorial," entitled an "Open Letter from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey," that Finn Partners, a public relations firm, created for the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Dkt. No. 225 ¶¶ 23–25. The advertisement contained "stylized images of the Idol," and thanked certain museums and "all the private collectors, auction houses, and universities for returning 4272 pieces of cultural heritage." Id. ¶ 24. The advertisement, which did not directly reference Christie's or the auction, was ultimately approved by Minister Avc1, then-Culture and Tourism Minister. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. On the same day, Minister Avc1 also made a statement to the press that Turkey had "taken steps in order to stop the sale of this work and inform the possible recipient that this was abducted from Turkey." Id. ¶ 38. A demonstration was also held outside Christie's that day by individuals holding red and white protest signs and bearing a banner of the Idol. Id. ¶ 40. The parties contest whether Turkey itself was involved in this demonstration. Id. ¶ 41.
On June 23, 2019, nearly two months after the auction, Turkey moved to compel disclosure of the identity of the High Bidder. See Dkt. No. 47. The Court granted that motion, finding that Turkey made "a reasonable case that the Bidder might have relevant information to provide the Republic." Dkt. No. 62 at 5. On August 28, 2017, Christie's and Steinhardt moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 74, which was denied on May 8, 2018 because their assertions relied "on documents outside of the complaint" that were "not attached to or incorporated in the complaint," and thus their arguments were premature. Dkt. No. 101. In its subsequent answer to the Second Amended Complaint, Christie's and Steinhardt asserted counterclaims against Turkey, Dkt. No. 107, and Turkey moved to dismiss those Counterclaims on June 12, 2018, Dkt. No. 114. Christie's and Steinhardt amended their counterclaims on June 29, 2018, Dkt. No. 122, and Turkey again moved to dismiss them on July 6, 2018, Dkt. No. 124.
On December 7, 2018, the parties filed the motions for summary judgment at issue here. See Dkt. No. 190; Dkt. No. 196. At the same time, Turkey also filed a Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony from two of Christie's and Steinhardt's experts. Dkt. No. 194. On March 29, 2019, the Court terminated Turkey's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, finding it mooted by its subsequent filing of a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims. Accordingly, now before the Court are the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and Turkey's Daubert motion.
As an initial matter, because this is a diversity action, it could raise choice of law questions. The parties, however, agree that New York law applies to all substantive claims and affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations defense. See Dkt. No. 236-1 at 4–5; Dkt. No. 230 at 2–3; see also Dkt. No. 210 at 14–25; Dkt. No. 223 at 3–19. They also agree that Turkish law governs the antecedent question of whether Turkey has a property interest in the Idol. See Dkt. No. 236-1 at 13; Dkt. No. 230 at 12–14. Specifically, the parties contest whether the 1906 Ottoman Decree vests ownership of the Idol in Turkey. That Decree provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll monuments and immovable and movable antiquities ... are the property of the Government of the Ottoman Empire." Dkt. No. 202-7 at 23.
Because no party has raised any dispute as to what law applies, the Court assumes for purposes of this Opinion and Order that New York law applies to the parties' claims and that Turkish law—and in particular the 1906 Decree—is determinative of whether Turkey owns the Idol.
To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party generally must demonstrate that " ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and ‘the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " Anyanwu v. City of New York , No. 10 Civ. 8498, 2013 WL 5193990, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raj & Raj Realty, Ltd. v. Difficile Realty Corp. (In re Sun Prop. Consultants, Inc.)
...when the defendant refuses to return the property after a demand or sooner disposes of the property."); Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc. , 425 F. Supp. 3d 204, 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). "[O]ne in lawful possession shall not have such possession changed into an unlawful one until he ‘be info......
- Williams v. Richardson, 17-CV-8940 (VSB)
-
Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc.
...the context of BMB Defendants' payment to Tolmakov suggests an intent to frustrate performance under the Emir Contract.”). But see Turkey, 425 F.Supp.3d at 219 (granting summary on tortious interference claim because the alleged acts of interferences were judicially authorized, and so “no r......
-
Pike Company, Inc. v. Universal Concrete Products, Inc.
...‘as a general rule,’ that ‘the defendant's conduct ... amount[ed] to a crime or an independent tort.’ " Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc. , 425 F. Supp. 3d 204, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin , 791 F.3d 247, 262 (2d Cir. 2015) ). " ‘When a defendant has acted w......
-
ISIL as Salesmen? The Roles of Due Diligence and the Good Faith Purchaser in Illicit Artifact Trafficking from the ISIL Insurgency
...note 123, at 2447. 128. Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311, 319 (1991). 129. Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 204, 213-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). 130. Museum of Fine Arts, Bos. v. Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2010). 131. Id. at 11. 132. Id.......