Suit Against Trinity Church Over Removal of 9/11 Memorial Dismissed
The sculpture sat in the church's courtyard for a decade, before the decision was made to move it, leading to claims by the artist of Visual Artists Rights Act violations.
November 15, 2017 at 01:14 PM
9 minute read
“The Trinity Root” by Steve Tobin. Photo by Wally Gobetz/CC/Flickr
The sculptor of “The Trinity Root,” which for a decade sat in the courtyard of Trinity Church in Lower Manhattan as a Sept. 11 memorial to the 100-year-old sycamore that helped shelter St. Paul's Chapel from damage that day, has had his suit over the removal of the work dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of the Southern District of New York.
Steven Tobin, the Pennsylvania-based artist, initially filed suit in April over the removal of the sculpture from the Trinity Church property in December 2015 to another Trinity-owned location in Connecticut. The case is Tobin v. The Rector, Church-Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, 17-cv-02622.
The work is meant to resemble the roots of the sycamore tree and was installed at the church on Sept. 11, 2005, during a public ceremony. The patina of the piece contains, according to Tobin, “actual DNA from victims of the attack that came to rest in soil within St. Paul's
churchyard.” At the time of its instillation, news reports indicated the artwork would exist as a permanent instillation at Trinity.
However, in 2015, the plaintiff was alerted to plans to move the sculpture, because the new rector, Rev. Dr. William Lupfer, considered it ugly, according to Tobin's second amended complaint.
The parties continued discussing what to do with the sculpture. In early December, a representative of the church told Tobin that the desire was for him to either retrieve the more-than-3-ton piece of art, or for it to be moved to a seminary in Connecticut.
Tobin said he considered the options, but called again a few days later to say that ”The Trinity Root” needed to stay where it was as it was a site-specific piece of art. It was then that he was told that the sculpture had already been moved. The artwork suffered damage during that and a subsequent move.
In his suit, Tobin brought, among other claims, three causes of action under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, arguing that Trinity caused injury to his honor and reputation because the removal of the sculpture constituted an intentional “distortion, mutilation and modification.” Tobin also argued for a VARA violation over destruction of the work due to the damage suffered when it moved.
Schofield found that the moving of the sculpture did not, by itself, constitute the kind of defacing or manipulation Tobin claimed under VARA. To do so would require a showing of gross negligence, which, given the facts of the suit, did not occur.
“These allegations are insufficient to plead gross negligence and overcome the public presentation exclusion to a claim based on the relocation of the sculpture,” Schofield wrote.
Damages to the artwork alone does not constitute the kind of “destruction” required for a VARA violation. Schofield said that the very request for an injunction to bring the sculpture back “undermines” the destruction claim because “such relief presupposes that 'The Trinity Root' has not been destroyed.”
Additionally, Tobin alleged promissory estoppel over claims there was a clear and unambiguous promise to keep “The Trinity Root” in the churchyard permanently. But Schofield found that in the agreement between Tobin and Trinity the church was given the right to use the artwork in any manner it chose, and specifically did not promise it would be exhibited publicly, and could loan it out as it deemed appropriate.
In a statement, Trinity spokeswoman Patti Walsh said the church was pleased with the court's decision to dismiss and conclude the matter.
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler partner Peter Tomlinson led Trinity's legal defense. Private attorneys Steven Honigman and Gale Elston represented Tobin. Neither could be reached for comment.
“The Trinity Root” by Steve Tobin. Photo by Wally Gobetz/CC/Flickr
The sculptor of “The Trinity Root,” which for a decade sat in the courtyard of Trinity Church in Lower Manhattan as a Sept. 11 memorial to the 100-year-old sycamore that helped shelter St. Paul's Chapel from damage that day, has had his suit over the removal of the work dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of the Southern District of
Steven Tobin, the Pennsylvania-based artist, initially filed suit in April over the removal of the sculpture from the Trinity Church property in December 2015 to another Trinity-owned location in Connecticut. The case is Tobin v. The Rector, Church-Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, 17-cv-02622.
The work is meant to resemble the roots of the sycamore tree and was installed at the church on Sept. 11, 2005, during a public ceremony. The patina of the piece contains, according to Tobin, “actual DNA from victims of the attack that came to rest in soil within St. Paul's
churchyard.” At the time of its instillation, news reports indicated the artwork would exist as a permanent instillation at Trinity.
However, in 2015, the plaintiff was alerted to plans to move the sculpture, because the new rector, Rev. Dr. William Lupfer, considered it ugly, according to Tobin's second amended complaint.
The parties continued discussing what to do with the sculpture. In early December, a representative of the church told Tobin that the desire was for him to either retrieve the more-than-3-ton piece of art, or for it to be moved to a seminary in Connecticut.
Tobin said he considered the options, but called again a few days later to say that ”The Trinity Root” needed to stay where it was as it was a site-specific piece of art. It was then that he was told that the sculpture had already been moved. The artwork suffered damage during that and a subsequent move.
In his suit, Tobin brought, among other claims, three causes of action under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, arguing that Trinity caused injury to his honor and reputation because the removal of the sculpture constituted an intentional “distortion, mutilation and modification.” Tobin also argued for a VARA violation over destruction of the work due to the damage suffered when it moved.
Schofield found that the moving of the sculpture did not, by itself, constitute the kind of defacing or manipulation Tobin claimed under VARA. To do so would require a showing of gross negligence, which, given the facts of the suit, did not occur.
“These allegations are insufficient to plead gross negligence and overcome the public presentation exclusion to a claim based on the relocation of the sculpture,” Schofield wrote.
Damages to the artwork alone does not constitute the kind of “destruction” required for a VARA violation. Schofield said that the very request for an injunction to bring the sculpture back “undermines” the destruction claim because “such relief presupposes that 'The Trinity Root' has not been destroyed.”
Additionally, Tobin alleged promissory estoppel over claims there was a clear and unambiguous promise to keep “The Trinity Root” in the churchyard permanently. But Schofield found that in the agreement between Tobin and Trinity the church was given the right to use the artwork in any manner it chose, and specifically did not promise it would be exhibited publicly, and could loan it out as it deemed appropriate.
In a statement, Trinity spokeswoman Patti Walsh said the church was pleased with the court's decision to dismiss and conclude the matter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
Cleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
'You Can't Do What You've Been Doing,' Lawyer Warns Union as Litigation Heats Up
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250