🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist art piece was looted by the Nazis.

Case History

As stated in the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern purchased the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were forced to flee their home in Munich on the eve of WWII.

The suit states that the institution, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was probably stolen property. The family are now requesting the return of the canvas along with compensation.

Following the war, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, alleges the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns fled from their Munich home to the United States in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities declared the masterpiece as property of the state and forbade the family from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a trustee appointed by the regime auctioned the artwork on the couple's behalf. However, the funds from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later seized.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered New York and was acquired by a prominent figure, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner the magnate and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise set up the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a museum in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The lawsuit alleges that the Goulandris family and its related entities have covered up the masterpiece's history and current place from the family.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide the circumstances the institution came into possession of the piece; the Stern family's ownership of the masterpiece from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Third Reich confiscated the artwork from the Stern family, coerced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the money of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs initiated a comparable case in CA in the year 2022, but it was thrown out in 2024. An further action was also denied in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit contends that the Met's purchase of the piece was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European paintings and a renowned specialist on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been stolen by the regime.

The Met issued a statement that it is committed to its ongoing pledge to address issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Never during the museum's possession of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – indeed, that data did not become accessible until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – specifically, it was documented that the artwork was judged to be of lower caliber than other pieces of the similar kind in the collection. Even though The Met maintains its view that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned legally and well within all rules and regulations, the museum invites and will examine any additional details that is discovered.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron representing the foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to litigate and defame the Foundation and the Goulandris family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be a third time.