A New York judge has ruled that David Nahmad, a billionaire art dealer, must also pay the accrued legal interest on the return of a Modigliani artwork looted by the Nazis, a decision that could raise the final bill by millions of dollars. The ruling, signed by Judge Joel M. Cohen on Tuesday, July 30, 2026, comes just weeks after the order to return the painting to the rightful heirs and reopens the economic game of a lawsuit that has lasted for over a decade.
Key Points
- Judge Joel M. Cohen has ruled that the heirs are entitled to legal interest on the value of the painting Seated Man with a Cane by Amedeo Modigliani.
- New York law mandates the payment of prejudgment interest in cases like this, without discretion for the judge.
- The heirs had valued the artwork at about 20 million dollars in 2014, while the Nahmad side estimates it at 6.5 million dollars.
- A probative hearing in September will establish the definitive value of the painting, the basis for calculating the interest.
- The case is headed for appeal, with the defense citing “serious procedural issues.”
The New York judge orders the return of the Modigliani painting looted by the Nazis
The case revolves around Seated Man with a Cane, a 1918 canvas that, according to judicial reconstruction, belonged to Jewish art dealer Oscar Stettiner, who was forced to abandon it in Paris during the Nazi occupation. Four months before the ruling on interest, the same Judge Cohen had already determined that the painting belonged to Stettiner’s heirs, ordering Nahmad to return it.
Context of the Modigliani artwork dispute
The lawsuit was initiated in 2014 and went through years of appeals before reaching a decision on the merits. In June 2026, the judge formally ordered the return of the looted artwork, but the matter did not end there: a few days later, the Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay, allowing the Nahmad family to retain possession of the painting while considering the request for more lasting protection pending the outcome of the appeal.
Previous judicial decisions on ownership
With the June ruling, the issue of ownership had already been substantially resolved in favor of the Stettiner heirs. The decision on Tuesday, industry observers explain, no longer concerns who legitimately owns the painting, but how much the entire litigation might cost Nahmad as the case proceeds to appeal.
Legal interest could increase the compensation
The prejudgment interest provided by New York law risks turning a judicial victory into an economic drain for the collector. The principle is simple: the heirs are entitled to compensation for all the years they were deprived of the artwork, and this translates into an amount that adds to the value of the painting itself.
Legal foundations and judge’s hesitations
What makes Tuesday’s ruling unusual is Judge Cohen’s implicit admission: the ruling on the return in New York leaves him little room for maneuver, even if the result does not entirely convince him. Cohen wrote that, if the law had allowed him, he would have “probably” reduced or even eliminated the amount of interest. But state law and binding precedents leave him no alternatives: the interest must be recognized anyway.
Upcoming probative hearing for the painting’s valuation
Exactly how much Nahmad will have to pay remains to be defined. The court has scheduled a probative hearing for September dedicated exclusively to the appraisal of the painting, a step that will effectively determine the final amount of interest. The two parties remain very far apart: the heirs have presented appraisals placing the value of the artwork around 20 million dollars at the time the lawsuit was initiated in 2014, while Nahmad’s legal front argues that the painting was worth only 6.5 million dollars. It is this gap, along with the time elapsed, that will determine the valuation of the Modigliani artwork on which to calculate the final compensation.
Legal disputes and ongoing appeal
The legal file does not close with the ruling on interest: the game now moves to the Court of Appeals, where Nahmad’s lawyers aim to overturn the decision’s framework.
The judge highlights the lack of evidence on Nahmad’s knowledge
An element weighing on the case’s narrative is that Judge Cohen explicitly acknowledged the absence of evidence that Nahmad knew, at the time of the auction purchase in 1996, that the painting was the result of Nazi looting. This detail did not prevent the order for restitution nor the recognition of interest, but it indicates how the legal case against David Nahmad is based on objective responsibilities rather than demonstrated intent.
Defense arguments and appeal motivations
Luke Nikas, the lawyer handling the appeal for the Nahmad family, stated that the ruling “raises serious questions on appeal.” In a note released to ARTnews, Nikas argued that the court attributed responsibility without a true trial, despite the defense having presented documentary evidence and sworn testimonies that, according to him, would demonstrate that Seated Man with a Cane is not the same painting that belonged to Stettiner. According to the lawyer, the court chose not to consider that material before ruling against the Nahmads. “The Nahmads acted in good faith and are entitled to their day in court,” Nikas said.
The gap between the two economic valuations and the still open issue of the painting’s very identity make it likely that the dispute will drag on, with the September hearing as the next decisive junction before the real amount Nahmad might have to pay the Stettiner heirs is known.
FAQ
What did the New York judge rule on David Nahmad and the Modigliani painting?
The judge ordered David Nahmad to return the Modigliani painting looted by the Nazis to the rightful heirs and ruled that they are entitled to prejudgment interest, with compensation that could increase by millions of dollars.
Why is prejudgment interest important in this case?
Prejudgment interest serves to compensate the heirs for the years they were deprived of the artwork, increasing the total amount Nahmad might have to pay beyond the original value of the painting.
Is there evidence that David Nahmad knew the painting was looted by the Nazis?
The judge specified that there is no evidence that Nahmad was aware of the painting’s origin when he purchased it at auction in 1996.
What are the next legal steps in the case?
A probative hearing is scheduled for September to determine the painting’s value, while the case is already headed for appeal, with Nahmad’s legal team intending to contest the ruling.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What did the New York judge rule on David Nahmad and the Modigliani painting?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The judge ordered David Nahmad to return the Modigliani painting looted by the Nazis to the rightful heirs and ruled that they are entitled to prejudgment interest, with compensation that could increase by millions of dollars.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Why is prejudgment interest important in this case?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Prejudgment interest serves to compensate the heirs for the years they were deprived of the artwork, increasing the total amount Nahmad might have to pay beyond the original value of the painting.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is there evidence that David Nahmad knew the painting was looted by the Nazis?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The judge specified that there is no evidence that Nahmad was aware of the painting’s origin when he purchased it at auction in 1996.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What are the next legal steps in the case?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”A probative hearing is scheduled for September to determine the painting’s value, while the case is already headed for appeal, with Nahmad’s legal team intending to contest the ruling.”}}]}
Content created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and human editorial review.
As expert in digital marketing, Amelia began working in the fintech sector in 2014 after writing her thesis on Bitcoin technology. Previously author for several international crypto-related magazines and CMO at Eidoo. She is now the co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Cryptonomist and Econique.
She is also a marketing teacher at Digital Coach in Milan and she published a book about NFTs for the Italian publishing house Mondadori, while she is also helping artists and company to entering in the sector. As advisor, Amelia is also involved in metaverse-related project such as The Nemesis and OVER.
