🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against The Met, asserting that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by the Nazis.

Historical Background

As stated in the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich just before the Second World War.

The suit argues that the institution, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, should have known it was almost certainly stolen property. The family are now requesting the return of the canvas along with compensation.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns fled from the city of Munich to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and forbade the couple from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a representative designated by the authorities sold the painting on the Sterns' behalf. But, the money from the auction were placed in a blocked account, which the Nazis later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

Around 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered NYC and was purchased by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a museum in Athens where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the Goulandris family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and location from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide how and when the foundation came into control of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Third Reich confiscated the canvas from the heirs, pressured the family into parting with it via a regime representative, and took the money of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The family initiated a similar complaint in California in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The institution said in a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to resolve issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any record that it had once belonged to the heirs – in fact, that information did not become accessible until a long time after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for disposal – specifically, it was recorded that the artwork was considered to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. While the museum maintains its stance that this artwork entered the holdings and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the museum welcomes and will consider any new information that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron acting for the Goulandris Foundation stated: BEG is a renowned institution in Greece. The effort to sue and smear the institution and the family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are certain it will be a third time.