Additionally, to allow a claim now, a centuryafter the alleged theft, would place an onerous burden on anyone owning old artwork. Such works could always be subject to claims by descendants of improper transfer. These claims are made at a time in history when they cannot be verified and, therefore, challenged. Thus, the considerations in all cases of laches must be applied in this case as well, and the action must be dismissed. Plaintiffs ' Cross Motion Plaintiffs contend that defendants have failed to provide discovery which would reveal whether there are markings on the back of the canvas which could conclusively identify the Painting.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants' motion is, therefore, premature.
At the same time, plaintiffs cross-move for summary judgment, claiming that having alleged their ownership of the Painting, defendants' possession, and defendants' refusal on demand to deliver the Painting, it is now defendants' burden to prove that the Painting was not stolen from Robinson's estate. Therefore, defendants were not obligated to comply with plaintiffs' discovery requests. Defendants' motion is not being decided based upon a factual determination of whether the Painting was stolen,but upon defenses of Statute of Limitations and laches. The questions sought to be answered in discovery are irrelevant to these defenses. Since plaintiffs are precluded from maintaining this action on the grounds of Statute of Limitations and laches, plaintiffs' cross motion is moot.