The defendant here is Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of New York County, NY (Manhattan). He’s sued in the Central District of California over his office’s investigation into antiquity art theft where plaintiff purchased a statue, the Bronze Male, for $1.33m in NYC and moved it to Santa Monica. The DA claims the statue was stolen from Turkey in the 1906s and should be returned. The DA’s motion to dismiss a suit over a subpoena in the investigation is granted. The suit anticipates a search warrant in California, but that hasn’t happened yet. Mendelsohn v. Bragg, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58971 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2025):
Neither would Mendelsohn’s requested relief—that all right, title, and interest in and to the Bronze Male is vested in Mendelsohn, and that DANY has no right, title, or interest in or to the Bronze Male—likely stop DANY’s threats and ability to seize the Bronze Male. Mendelsohn does not allege that DANY has asserted superior right, title, or interest to him in the Bronze Male. (See generally Compl.) Per the Complaint, DANY contends that “the Bronze Male was looted and illegally exported from Bubon in the 1960s.” (Id. ¶ 31; see id. ¶ 39 (alleging DANY contends the “Bronze Male was looted improperly from Turkey”).) DANY is seeking to “repatriate the Bronze Male” to Turkey. (Id. ¶ 33; see id. ¶ 34 (“DANY states that it intends to seek a turnover order” to deliver the Bronze Male “to the owner upon satisfactory proof of title.”).) Even more, DANY’s counsel declares that DANY “has made no claim of ownership over the Bronze Male.” (Sanyshyn [*11] Decl. ¶ 4.)
Still, Mendelsohn contends that his requested judicial declaration would resolve whether DANY has “a right to seize and possess the Bronze Male outside of its authority.” (Opp’n 7.) This is incorrect. Mendelsohn only seeks a declaration that all right, title, and interest in and to the Bronze Male is vested in him, and that DANY has no right, title, or interest in or to the Bronze Male. Thus, this litigation will not determine whether DANY’s seizure of the Bronze Male through any of the identified means (e.g., consensual stipulation or search warrant) would be outside of DANY’s authority. Nor would a judicial resolution “halt DANY’s unlawful actions.” (Id. at 8.) In other words, even if Mendelsohn obtains the requested relief, whether DANY can seize his property via a search warrant or other means (or threaten to do so) would remain unresolved.
This is because DANY does not claim “right, title, or interest” in and to the Bronze Male. More importantly, even a valid search warrant would not grant DANY “right, title, or interest” in and to the Bronze Male. Title is “[t]he union of all elements (as ownership, possession, and custody) constituting the legal right to control and [*12] dispose of property.” Title, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). As one New York court has explained, under New York law, “[t]he seizure of property … does not affect the title in the thing seized.” Matter of Documents Seized Pursuant to a Search Warrant, 478 N.Y.S.2d 490, 496 (Sup. Ct. 1984). As to “interest,” Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “property interest” as “all or part of a legal or equitable claim to or right in property.” Interest, Black’s Law Dictionary. Somewhat circularly, it defines a “property right” as “[t]he interest, claim, or ownership that one has” in property or a “right to specific property.” Right, Black’s Law Dictionary. Regardless, “[t]here is no question” that a person “retains a property interest in its records seized pursuant to a search warrant.” Matter of Documents Seized Pursuant to a Search Warrant, 478 N.Y.S.2d at 496. Therefore, by seizing the statue, DANY will not acquire right, title, or interest in the Bronze Male. Accordingly, even if the Court were to issue Mendelsohn’s requested declaration, the order would not prevent DANY from seizing the statue.
This ends the inquiry into whether Mendelsohn’s requested relief would redress his due process injury. Even if DANY had custody over the Bronze Male after seizing it, this would not provide DANY right, title, or interest in the statue. But it does not even appear that DANY would have custody of, much less right, title, or interest in, the Bronze Male if it seized the statue pursuant to a warrant. “Where state statutes place items seized by local law enforcement under judicial control, courts have held that seizure by police itself constitutes an assertion of jurisdiction over the seized items by the state courts.” In re Seizure of Approximately 28 Grams of Marijuana, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing United States v. $490,920 in U.S. Currency, 911 F. Supp. 720, 725 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding statute provided in rem jurisdiction where statute and case law required that seized items be held “in the custody of the court”)).
Under New York law, “a search warrant is a court order and process directing a police officer to conduct: (a) a search of designated premises for the purpose of seizing designated property, and to deliver any property so obtained to the court which issued the warrant.” $490,920 in U.S. Currency, 911 F. Supp. at 725 (cleaned up) (quoting N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. § 690.05(2)(a)). Further, “property seized pursuant to a search warrant technically remains in the custody of the court, and the District Attorney … possesses the property only as an officer of the court, subject to the court’s direction and disposition.” Matter of Documents Seized Pursuant to a Search Warrant, 478 N.Y.S.2d at 494; see, e.g., $490,920 in U.S. Currency, 911 F. Supp. at 725 (interpreting “New York’s warrant and seizure scheme as providing the state court with in rem jurisdiction until such court relinquishes its jurisdiction upon full compliance with its final disposition order regarding the seized property”); Kerr v. Snyder, No. 1:12-CV-1392 MAD/CFH, 2015 WL 4404342, at *12 (N.D.N.Y. July 17, 2015) (“[P]ursuant to New York’s Criminal Procedure Law, property seized pursuant to a search warrant remains in the control of the issuing judge.”), aff’d sub nom. Kerr v. Morrison, 664 F. App’x 48 (2d Cir. 2016); see also N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. § 690.55 (discussing court’s custody of property seized pursuant to a search warrant). In other words, after seizing the Bronze Male pursuant to a search warrant, DANY must then deliver it to the issuing New York court, which would retain custody of the statue until it disposes of the statue (e.g., to the rightful owner through a turnover order). Accordingly, it does not appear that DANY would have custody of, let alone right, title, or interest in, the Bronze Male if it seized the statue pursuant to an even extra-jurisdictional warrant.
Thus, Mendelsohn fails to show that his requested relief would redress any due process injury caused by DANY seizing the Bronze Male.
