Safani Gallery, Inc. v. Italian Republic

Background

Safani Gallery purchased the Head of Alexander at auction in England in June 2017 for approximately $150,000 and brought it to New York. Safani alleged that it investigated the statue’s origins and determined that it was not missing or stolen. In February 2018, an employee of Italy’s Roman Forum Archaeological Site reported that the statue matched one recorded as missing. An employee of Italy’s Ministry of Culture Heritage and Activities and Tourism, referred to as “MiBACT,” contacted the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and claimed that Italy owned the statue and that it had been stolen.

The District Attorney obtained a warrant stating that the statue was evidence of second-degree criminal possession of stolen property. Officers seized the statue from Safani Gallery, and the District Attorney later began a state-court proceeding seeking its transfer to an owner under New York law. The state court stayed that proceeding so Safani could pursue its ownership claim in federal court.

Safani’s Second Amended Complaint asserted ownership-related claims against Italy, MiBACT, the Manhattan District Attorney, and the statue as an in-rem defendant. It also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the District Attorney violated Safani’s Fourth Amendment rights through an unconstitutional seizure and its Fourteenth Amendment rights through an unconstitutional taking. Safani sought declarations, injunctions, and return of the statue; it did not seek money damages from the District Attorney.

Claims Against Italy and MiBACT

The court treated Italy’s opposition to the amended complaint as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a foreign state and its agencies or instrumentalities are generally immune from suit in United States courts unless a statutory exception applies. Based on Safani’s own allegations, the court held that Italy and MiBACT qualified as foreign states under the Act.

The court rejected Safani’s reliance on the commercial-activity exception. It held that MiBACT’s communication to the District Attorney asserting Italy’s ownership of the statue was connected to sovereign activity—protecting and enforcing claims concerning nationalized cultural property—not commercial activity. Safani’s general allegation that MiBACT sponsored exhibits and engaged in commercial activity was insufficient.

The court also rejected the expropriation exception. It relied on its earlier ruling that the statue had not been taken by Italy or MiBACT, that the District Attorney was not shown to be controlled by or acting as an agent of Italy or MiBACT, and that Safani had not adequately alleged a taking in violation of international law or the required connection to commercial activity. The court found that the new allegations did not change those conclusions.

Finally, the court rejected the tortious-activity exception. Safani alleged that Italy and MiBACT knowingly made a false claim that the statue was stolen. The court held, however, that the alleged communication into the United States necessarily originated outside the United States, so the entire alleged tort did not occur in the United States as required by the exception.

The court therefore held that Italy and MiBACT were immune from the action. It granted the motion to dismiss on their behalf, dismissed them from the case, and dismissed Count IV.

Federal Claims Against the Manhattan District Attorney

The court next considered Safani’s federal claims against the Manhattan District Attorney. It treated the threshold issue as whether Safani had constitutional standing—an adequate personal connection to the alleged injury and to the requested court relief.

The court held that Safani lacked standing. The alleged seizure of the statue and the initiation of the state-court turnover proceeding were past events. Safani sought declaratory and injunctive relief, which generally requires a current or impending injury rather than past wrongdoing alone. Safani did not seek an injunction against possible future seizures or future turnover proceedings.

The court also rejected Safani’s argument that its current lack of possession of the statue was fairly traceable to the District Attorney. Under New York law, property seized under a warrant remains under the custody and control of the state court, while the District Attorney holds it subject to that court’s orders. Because the state court controlled the statue’s disposition, a ruling that the District Attorney’s conduct was unconstitutional would not itself provide the return or other relief Safani requested.

The court emphasized that standing must be shown separately for each claim and each form of relief. Safani could not rely on its ownership claim to establish standing for its separate Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court therefore granted the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss Counts V and VI for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without deciding those federal claims on their merits. The court noted that the federal claims appeared to have additional merits problems, but stated that it was unnecessary to decide them after finding no standing.

Remaining State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the remaining claims were state-law claims for a declaratory judgment, conversion, and replevin. Because no federal claim or diverse party remained to support original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims. It dismissed them without prejudice.

The court granted Italy’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Italy and MiBACT, granted the Manhattan District Attorney’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the federal claims against that defendant, dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case.