You are here: / / ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING...

ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS AND SOLD IN NEW YORK BY CHRISTIE’S PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined a lawsuit to determine ownership of a Degas painting illegally confiscated by Nazis and years later sold at a Christie’s auction in New York was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens.  The plaintiffs’ rights arose in Germany and France and Swiss and French estate law apply:

The motion court properly dismissed this action on forum non conveniens grounds without first determining whether it had personal jurisdiction over all the defendants. Sinochem Intl. Co. Ltd. v Malaysia Intl. Shipping Corp.(549 US 422 [2007]) is persuasive authority on this point. In that case, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that a trial court “has discretion to respond at once to a defendant’s forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject matter jurisidiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case” (id. at 425). To be sure, as the Sinochem Court noted, if a court can readily determine that it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the proper course is to dismiss on that ground. However, where personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations clearly militate in favor of dismissal, a court may dismiss on the latter ground (id. at 436). …

Plaintiffs’ rights as heirs to the painting arose in Germany and France, although the painting was allegedly wrongfully sold in New York. The burden on the New York court in applying Swiss and French estate law to determine the underlying issue of the lawful heirs to [the owner’s] estate is significant. As the motion court noted, the parties “not only dispute the applicable foreign law, but discuss the substance of the law . . . in a manner that is, at best, opaque.” “The applicability of foreign law is an important consideration in determining a forum non conveniens motion . . . and weighs in favor of dismissal” … . …

The potential hardships to the defendants of litigating in New York are clear. * * *

Switzerland appears to be an available alternative forum. France and Germany also may be possible alternatives.  Kainer v UBS AG, 2019 NY Slip Op 06053, First Dept 8-7-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT TO A NEWSPAPER WAS NOT LIBELOUS BECAUSE IT FELL WITHIN THE JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE, THE STATEMENT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO AN ALLEGATION IN A LAWSUIT (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” RE: WHETHER FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Failure to Accurately Identify Where Slip and Fall Occurred in Notice of Claim Warranted Dismissal of Complaint
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEX OFFENDER LEVEL ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK COUNTY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE SORA PROCEEDING IN BRONX COUNTY WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME CONDUCT (FIRST DEPT).
IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DISPUTE INVOLVING MALAYSIAN BANKS, INCLUDING GOLDMAN SACHS SINGAPORE, PROPERLY... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY...