On 3 April 2026, a New York court ordered the return of a $25 million Modigliani painting looted during the Nazi era, bringing to an end an 11-year legal battle between the heirs of a Jewish art dealer and the prominent Nahmad art dealing family. In Greason v. Nahmad (2026 NY Slip Op 50461), the New York Supreme Court ruled that Amedeo Modigliani’s “Seated Man With a Cane” (1918) belongs to the estate of Oscar Stettiner, from whose Paris gallery it was taken during World War II.
Background
Oscar Stettiner, a Paris-based Jewish art dealer, fled France in 1939 as Nazi forces advanced, leaving behind his gallery and collection, including the Modigliani painting, which he had previously loaned to the Venice Biennale. During the occupation, he was arrested and interned in 1943, and a Nazi-appointed administrator sold his property, among it the painting, without his consent as part of the regime’s “Aryanization” program.
Although a French court ordered the painting’s return in 1946, it had already been sold, and Stettiner died in 1948 before it could be recovered.
Decades later, the artwork resurfaced on the international art market. In 1996, it was acquired at auction by International Art Center S.A., a holding company linked to the Nahmad family, and subsequently stored in a Swiss freeport. In 2011, Philippe Maestracci, Stettiner’s grandson, initiated legal proceedings in New York seeking restitution of the painting.
Panama Papers Reveal True Ownership Structure
A central issue in the case concerned the painting’s ownership structure. The defendants denied direct ownership and pointed to the offshore company as the formal holder of the artwork, arguing that gaps in the provenance undermined the heirs’ claim. However, investigative reporting by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), based on the Panama Papers, revealed that International Art Center S.A. had been controlled by the Nahmad family for over two decades. These findings proved significant in clarifying beneficial ownership and ultimately undermined the defense strategy.
Legal Framework
The court applied New York common law (replevin and conversion) and decided the case on summary judgment, focusing on whether the plaintiff could establish a superior right of possession and involuntary loss.
At the same time, the court assessed the case against the broader policy backdrop of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act.
While the decision ultimately rested on established property law principles, the HEAR Act played an important interpretive role:
- The Act reflects a clear legislative intent to ensure “just and fair” resolution of Nazi-era art claims
- It supports a claimant-friendly approach to timeliness, particularly where heirs lacked knowledge of the artwork’s location
- The court’s rejection of the laches defense aligns with this policy: the Stettiner family had been misled for decades about the painting’s whereabouts.
Key Findings
- The plaintiff demonstrated a superior ownership/possessory interest
- The painting was not voluntarily relinquished
- A 1946 French restitution decision supported the claim
- The defendants failed to raise any triable issue of fact
- The laches defense was rejected, given the historical concealment of the artwork
Outcome
The court granted summary judgment for the heirs and ordered the return of the painting.
The decision is notable not only for its outcome, but also for the way it combines traditional property law principles with modern restitution policy under the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act—and for the role played by investigative findings from the Panama Papers in uncovering the painting’s true ownership structure.
#ArtLaw #Restitution #HEARAct #CulturalProperty