We secured dismissal of claims brought against the Guggenheim in connection with a dispute concerning Picasso’s Woman Ironing

On October 21, 2025, the First Department unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an action against our client, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, seeking restitution of Woman Ironing, a Picasso masterpiece in the Guggenheim’s permanent collection. The dispute was covered in the New York Times and described by Art News as among “the most discussed art world lawsuits of 2024.”

The plaintiffs filed the action in January 2023 in the New York State Supreme Court, claiming that Woman Ironing belonged to them as indirect beneficiaries of the estate of Karl Adler, a former owner of the painting. Adler had sold the painting in 1938, after fleeing Nazi Germany, to Justin Thannhauser, a fellow German Jew, who later bequeathed the painting to the Guggenheim. The plaintiffs alleged that Adler sold the painting to Thannhauser at a low price because Adler needed to raise funds to flee Europe, and claimed that the sale was therefore invalid based on a theory of duress. The plaintiffs sought restitution of the painting or damages in the amount of $100-200 million.

Davis Polk moved to dismiss, arguing, among other grounds, that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any cognizable theory of duress under New York law, including because it was undisputed that there was neither any threat from Thannhauser nor any Nazi involvement whatsoever in the transaction. Davis Polk also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by laches, as the plaintiffs had waited 85 years to challenge the validity of the sale, and neither Adler nor any of his children ever made any effort to recover the painting or suggested that the sale had been unfair. It was undisputed that the location and ownership of the painting had never been unknown, given the painting’s decades-long prominent display at the Guggenheim, less than a mile from where Adler’s children lived. The Guggenheim even proactively contacted the Adler family in 1974 to inquire about their prior ownership of the painting before accepting the work into its collection, and the Adlers had raised no concern in response. We also argued that any duress claim was barred by the doctrine of ratification because Adler had accepted and retained the proceeds of the sale throughout his life and had never repudiated the transaction.

On June 6, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, granted the Guggenheim’s motion to dismiss on duress, laches, and ratification grounds.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department. Briefing was completed in March 2025, and oral argument took place on September 30, 2025.

Affirming the decision below, on October 21, 2025, the First Department held unanimously that (1) dismissal on the basis of laches was warranted, because the plaintiffs’ lack of due diligence and associated prejudice to the Guggenheim were apparent from the face of the complaint; (2) the seller of the painting had ratified the sale agreement by failing to repudiate it; and (3) the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments were unavailing.

The Davis Polk team on appeal included partner Antonio J. Perez-Marques (who argued the motion to dismiss and the appeal), counsel Caroline Stern and associates Kyra Macy Kaufman and Hugh Hansard Verrier.

Copy link to share post