Partner William Charron, the co-chair of Pryor Cashman’s Art Law practice and member of the firm’s Litigation Group, spoke with The New York Law Journal about the ongoing dispute about “Woman in a Black Pinafore” (1911) and “Woman Hiding Her Face” (1912). According to the Law Journal:

In a closely watched case over the rightful ownership of two early 20th century paintings looted by the Nazis, a fierce legal battle has emerged over $1.4 million in pre-judgment interest that—in the view of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs—continues to grow each day as legal arguments drag on.

The merits of the dispute over which party should own the artworks—“Woman in a Black Pinafore” (1911) and “Woman Hiding Her Face” (1912)—based on their disputed provenance, has been all but settled for more than a year. In July 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department issued a 46-page opinion that was filled with provenance history and examination of past rulings by New York courts. The appeals court affirmed Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos’ 2018 decision stating that the Jewish heirs of 1930s Austrian Jewish entertainer Fritz Grünbaum held rightful title to the paintings.

In response to questions on the merit of the ongoing dispute, Charron stated:

[In] the court papers filed Oct. 30. Charron wrote that “had plaintiffs [the Jewish heirs] elected the remedy of damages (meaning the value of the artworks as of the time of conversion on November 13, 2015), then they would have been entitled to prejudgment interest on that sum, but defendants would have maintained possession and use of the artworks.”

Instead, wrote Charron, “Plaintiffs elected the remedy of replevin [or return of possession of the artworks] because they believed (correctly) that the value of the artworks was greater than the value of an award of damages plus statutory interest. Plaintiffs’ election of remedy is binding and it controls their prejudgment interest demand.”

In addition, Charron wrote that the heirs “do not contest that the artworks were worth $3.4 million as of November 4, 2018. … Thus, there is no dispute that the artworks appreciated in value by $900,000 during the period of wrongful detention. That appreciation exceeds the prejudgment interest sum that plaintiffs would have been entitled to receive had they elected the remedy of conversion damages rather than the remedy of replevin. Plaintiffs’ replevin of the artworks, therefore, made them whole.”

In an email Wednesday, Charron added that, once the prejudgment interest issue is resolved, he and Nagy intend to go to the Court of Appeals and again seek leave—or permission—to have their appeal on the merits of the ownership dispute heard by the high court.

Prejudgment interest is “the last remaining issue in the case at the trial court level,” Charron said. “The Court of Appeals said earlier this year that it wanted this issue decided before it considered the defendants’ motion for leave to appeal on the merits. That motion asks the court to review rulings by the Appellate Division that fundamentally upset and changed the laws of res judicata and laches in New York. We are very eager to re-present that motion to the Court of Appeals.”

Read the article in full by clicking through the link below.