Court Awards Nazi-Looted Modigliani to Original Owner’s Estate, Holding Speculation About Provenance Insufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment

Posted: August 24, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Summary Judgment, Conversion, Statute of Limitations/Laches

Court Awards Nazi-Looted Modigliani to Original Owner’s Estate, Holding Speculation About Provenance Insufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment

On April 3, 2026, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division granted summary judgment to the estate of Oscar Stettiner on claims seeking return of Amedeo Modigliani’s painting Seated Man With a Cane, holding that the estate established Stettiner’s superior right to possession and that defendants’ alternative theories concerning the Painting’s provenance were too speculative to create a triable issue of fact. The case is Greason v Nahmad, Index No. 650646/2014.

Stettiner, a Jewish art collector living in Paris, possessed the Painting before World War II. The record showed that he lent it to the 1930 Venice Biennale, that it was sold in Nazi-occupied Paris in 1944, and that a French court ordered its return to him in 1946. The Painting remained with descendants of the 1944 purchaser until defendants acquired it at a Christie’s auction in 1996. Rejecting defendants’ arguments that someone other than Stettiner might have owned the Painting or that the Painting sold in 1944 might have been a different Modigliani, the Court explained: “Defendants’ submission consists principally of speculation by their experts that it is possible that someone other than Mr. Stettiner owned the Painting, or that the painting displayed at the 1930 Biennale is not in fact the painting that was sold in the 1944 sale to Mr. Van der Klip.” Slip op., p. 16. The Court concluded that this showing was insufficient either to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie case or to create a triable issue requiring trial. Id., pp. 16-19.

The Court also rejected defendants’ laches defense. Although decades had passed before the action was commenced, the Court found that Stettiner had pursued recovery after the war and that his family had been misled as to the Painting’s whereabouts, with no showing that additional investigative steps would have revealed where it was. The Court further found that defendants had not established prejudice resulting from the delay, and therefore held that the mere passage of time was insufficient to support laches. Slip op., pp. 19-21.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning conversion or laches.