Republic Of Turkey v. Christie's Inc.

425 F. Supp. 3d 204 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Around 1961, Alastair and Edith Martin, 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. Kulaksizlar, located in modern-day Turkey, is the only workshop known to have produced Kiliya-type idols. The Martins loaned the Idol, a part of their so-called 'Guennol Collection,' to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In 1993, the Martins sought the return of the Idol and 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. The Judy and Michael Steinhardt Collection subsequently loaned the Idol back to the Met in 1999. It remained on loan to the Met between 1999 and 2007. Steinhardt consigned the Idol to Christie's (D) for sale, and it was delivered to Christie's. 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. P learned about the planned sale of the Idol. 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. P claims ownership of the Idol under a 1906 Ottoman Decree. P sued Ds. The Idol ultimately sold for a high bid of $12,700,000. The buyer never took possession. The Idol remains in Christie's possession. On the day of the auction, P began a publicity campaign thanking museums and 'all the private collectors, auction houses, and universities for returning 4272 pieces of cultural heritage.' 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. Two months after the auction, P moved to compel disclosure of the identity of the High Bidder. The Court granted that motion. Both parties eventually filed the motions for summary judgment at issue here and P also filed a Daubert motion.