1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2022 6 7 (Argued: December 7, 2022 Decided: March 8, 2023) 8 9 Docket No. 21-2485 10 11 ____________________ 12 13 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, 14 15 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, 16 17 v. 18 19 CHRISTIE’S INC., MICHAEL STEINHARDT, 20 21 Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, 22 23 JOHN DOES 1-5, 24 Defendants, 25 26 ANATOLIAN MARBLE FEMALE IDOL OF KILIYA TYPE, 27 28 Defendant-in-Rem. 29 30 ____________________ 31 32 33 1 Before: POOLER, CHIN, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. 2 3 The Republic of Turkey appeals from the September 7, 2021 judgment of

4 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J.

5 Nathan, J.), concluding after an eight-day bench trial that Turkey failed to prove

6 its ownership of a six-thousand-year-old marble idol. The district court

7 determined that Turkey’s claims of replevin and conversion failed and entered a

8 declaratory judgment that all rights, title, and interest to the idol vested in

9 defendant Michael Steinhardt. In addition, the district court held that defendants 10 were entitled to judgment because they established the equitable defense of 11 laches. 12 On appeal, Turkey argues the district court misconstrued fundamental 13 principles of New York law in each of these holdings. Because we conclude that 14 Turkey prejudiced defendants by unreasonably delaying this action, we affirm 15 the judgment under the doctrine of laches. 16 Affirmed.

2 1 Judge Lohier concurs in part and in the result, and files a separate

2 concurring opinion.

3 ____________________

4

5 LAWRENCE M. KAYE (Victor J. Rocco, Howard N. 6 Spiegler, Yaél M. Weitz, on the brief), Herrick, Feinstein 7 LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- 8 Appellant. 9 10 L. EDEN BURGESS (Thomas R. Kline, on the brief), 11 Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC, New York, NY and 12 Washington, DC, for Defendants-Counter-Claimants- 13 Appellees. 14

3 1 POOLER, Circuit Judge: 2 3 This appeal arises out of an ownership dispute over the “Stargazer,” a six-

4 thousand-year-old marble figurine. Pursuant to its patrimony laws, the Republic

5 of Turkey claims title to the Stargazer, alleging the idol was unlawfully

6 excavated and smuggled out of its borders.

7 Turkey brought claims of conversion and

8 replevin against Christie’s Inc., the

9 possessor, Michael Steinhardt, the owner, 10 and the Stargazer itself (collectively, 11 “Defendants”) and sought a declaratory 12 judgment that all rights, title, and interest 13 to the Stargazer vested in Turkey. After an App'x at 215 14 eight-day bench trial, the district court 15 (Nathan, J.) concluded that Turkey failed to prove by a preponderance of the 16 evidence its ownership interest in the Stargazer, and entered a declaratory 17 judgment that all rights, title, and interest to the idol vested in Steinhardt. In

4 1 addi