Just weeks after ordering billionaire art dealer David Nahmad to return a Nazi-looted Amedeo Modigliani painting, a New York judge has ruled that the painting’s rightful heirs are also entitled to prejudgment interest, a decision that could add millions in compensation to the case.
In a decision issued Tuesday, Justice Joel M. Cohen said New York law requires prejudgment interest in cases like this, meaning the heirs are entitled to compensation for the years they were deprived of Seated Man with a Cane. Exactly how much they’ll receive is still up in the air. The court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for September to determine the painting’s value, which will largely dictate the size of the award.
The latest ruling comes four months after Cohen found that the Modigliani belonged to the estate of Jewish art dealer Oscar Stettiner, who left it behind while fleeing Paris ahead of the Nazi occupation. In June, the judge gave Nahmad 30 days to return the painting.
What’s striking about Tuesday’s decision is that Cohen more or less admits he doesn’t love the outcome. He notes there is no evidence Nahmad knew the painting had been looted when it was bought at auction in 1996, and that the heirs will get back a painting that’s likely worth far more today than when the lawsuit began. If the law gave him the option, Cohen wrote, he “might well” reduce the interest award or even eliminate it altogether. But, he added, New York law and binding precedent leave him no room to do that.
Tuesday’s decision isn’t about who owns the painting anymore. That fight has already been decided. This one is about what the years-long legal battle ultimately costs.
That question is still unresolved. The heirs have submitted appraisals valuing the painting at roughly $20 million when the lawsuit was filed in 2014. Nahmad’s side says it was worth just $6.5 million. The judge will sort that out at an evidentiary hearing in September before calculating the final interest award.
Nahmad’s attorneys, meanwhile, are already looking toward an appeal.
“This case raises serious appellate issues,” attorney Luke Nikas said in a statement to ARTnews. He argued that the court imposed liability without a trial even though the defense submitted documentary evidence and sworn eyewitness testimony that, in its view, shows Seated Man with a Cane is not the same painting once owned by Stettiner.
According to Nikas, the court declined to consider those materials before ruling against the Nahmads. “The Nahmads acted in good faith, and they are entitled to their day in court,” he said.
