USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Steven Schindler, Katherine Wilson-Milne, Thomas Kline, Eden Burgess and Aaron Haines, Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP
some individuals), in New York and throughout the US, plucking out objects and sending them back to their presumed countries of origin – even though some objects have been publicly displayed for decades. The DA’s Office claims that the ATU has returned more than USD400 million worth of looted artworks and antiquities, although it has not released any apprais - als. Such tactics have prompted some out-of-state muse - ums to push back on what they see as overreaching by the ATU, particularly considering the limited author - ity and jurisdiction of state law enforcement agencies, and that, in many cases, the injured party would be unlikely to succeed in recovering the works in civil litigation. In 2023, the ATU seized in place a statue at the Cleve - land Museum of Art (CMA) known as “The Philoso - pher”, a highlight of the CMA’s collection for almost 40 years. In response, the CMA sued the Manhattan DA in federal court, seeking a declaration that the CMA owns the statue ( Cleveland Museum of Art v District Attorney of New York County , No 23-002048 (North - ern District of Ohio)). The lawsuit allowed the CMA time to study the statue scientifically, determine that it was looted from Turkey, and negotiate a return directly with Turkey in exchange for loans and other cultural co-operation (see Brian Boucher’s article “Cleveland Museum Will Send $20 Million Statue Back to Turkey After Years-Long Battle”, artnet, 14 February 2025). The ATU recently pivoted and is now seizing art - works allegedly looted by the Nazis, an area that requires different historical understanding, archives and approaches. Most notably, the ATU is assisting heirs of the Austrian Jewish cabaret performer Fritz Grünbaum in their pursuit of more than 80 works that the DA’s Office claims Grünbaum “was forced to hand over to the Nazis when he was imprisoned in 1938” before being murdered at Dachau (see Adam Schrader’s article “Manhattan DA Is Arguing for the Art Institute of Chicago to Turn Over an Egon Schiele Work”, artnet, 23 February 2024). In February 2024, the ATU filed an application for the return of “Russian War Prisoner”, a 1916 Egon Schiele drawing at the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC) allegedly
owned by Grünbaum before the war, In the Matter of an Application for a Warrant to Search the Premises Located at The Art Institute of Chicago (Case No SMZ- 77042-24/001, New York Supreme Court, New York County). The drawing had been displayed at the AIC since 1966. The application states that ADA Bogdanos met with the Grünbaum heirs in 2022 and determined that 11 Schiele drawings from Grünbaum’s collection were known to have been owned, displayed or sold in New York en route to museums and collectors. The ATU contended that this connection, even if fleeting and decades-old, provides grounds for jurisdiction over an artwork as part of a charge of possession of stolen property. The ATU also argued that the time- based defence of laches (unreasonable delay by the claimant causing prejudice to the possessor) was una - vailable to the AIC. The AIC consented to the seizure but opposed turno - ver, requesting that the drawing be seized in place and contending that it has “lawful ownership”. In a controversial decision, the trial-level New York County Supreme Court granted the DA’s application for turno - ver, concluding that the application was timely, “Rus - sian War Prisoner” had been stolen by the Nazis, and the court had jurisdiction. The opinion mostly repeat - ed the DA’s application without providing an analysis of the AIC’s arguments on timeliness and jurisdiction. The AIC has appealed. On top of the ATU’s action, the Grünbaum heirs have brought a civil action in New York federal court regard - ing the same drawing – Reif v Art Institute of Chi- cago, No 23-02443 (Southern District of New York). The district court granted the AIC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the statute of limitations had expired. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the issues presented were sufficiently ambiguous that they needed to be aired through discovery and further analysis, not decided on a motion to dismiss. Hence, the federal district court in Manhattan and New York’s appellate division will be considering difficult questions concerning “Russian War Prisoner”.
605 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook