ROBERT OWEN LEHMAN FOUNDATION INC PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT v. ISRAELITISCHE KULTUSGEMEINDE WIEN DEFENDANT NAVA BAR ROBERT RIEGER TRUST AND JACOB BARAK AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT RIEGER TRUST DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS SUSAN ZIRKL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TRUST AND MICHAEL LISSNER AS TRUSTEE OF THE SUSAN ZIRKL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TRUST DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

ROBERT OWEN LEHMAN FOUNDATION, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ISRAELITISCHE KULTUSGEMEINDE WIEN, DEFENDANT, NAVA BAR, ROBERT RIEGER TRUST, AND JACOB BARAK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT RIEGER TRUST, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, SUSAN ZIRKL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TRUST AND MICHAEL D. LISSNER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SUSAN ZIRKL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TRUST, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
NAVA BAR, ROBERT RIEGER TRUST AND JACOB BARAK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT RIEGER TRUST, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT OWEN LEHMAN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

169 Decided: June 26, 2026

PRESENT: BANNISTER, J.P., MONTOUR, GREENWOOD, NOWAK, AND HANNAH, JJ.

DUNNINGTON BARTHOLOW & MILLER LLP, NEW YORK CITY (CLAUDIA G. JAFFE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, NEW YORK CITY (OREN J. WARSHAVSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this litigation concerning the ownership of a portrait made in 1917 by Austrian artist Egon Schiele of his wife, defendants-third-party plaintiffs Nava Bar, Robert Rieger Trust, and Jacob Barak, as Trustee of the Robert Rieger Trust (collectively, Rieger defendants) appeal from a judgment, entered following a nonjury trial, that, inter alia, declared that defendants Susan Zirkl Memorial Foundation Trust and Michael D. Lissner, as Trustee of the Susan Zirkl Memorial Foundation Trust (collectively, Maylander defendants) are the rightful owners of the artwork. We affirm. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment and giving due deference to Supreme Court's credibility determinations (see Dennis v Cerrone, 229 AD3d 1116, 1119 [4th Dept 2024]), we conclude that, contrary to the Rieger defendants’ contention, there is a fair interpretation of the evidence supporting the court's determination that the Maylander defendants are the rightful owners of the artwork (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747-748 [3d Dept 2001]). We note that we affirm the court's determination on the merits rather than on its alternative holding with respect to laches, and thus the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (Pub L 119-82, 140 US Stat 752 [119th Cong, 2d Sess, Jan. 3, 2026]) does not affect our analysis. We have reviewed the Rieger defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.

Entered: June 26, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network