🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Met, asserting that a the Dutch artist art piece was looted by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their home in the German city of Munich just before World War II.

The complaint argues that the institution, which purchased the artwork in the mid-1950s for $125,000, must have realized it was probably stolen property. The family are now demanding the repatriation of the artwork along with compensation.

Since the end of the war, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through NYC, alleges the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns departed from Munich to the United States in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were unable to bring the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, the Nazi government declared the painting as property of the state and forbade the family from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the Nazis sold the artwork on the couple's behalf. But, the money from the transaction were placed in a frozen account, which the Nazis later seized.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or not long after, the painting entered NYC and was acquired by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a gallery in the Greek capital where the painting is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the family and its related entities have covered up the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the artwork; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich stole the artwork from the Stern family, pressured the Sterns into parting with it via a regime representative, and confiscated the funds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants filed a related lawsuit in California in 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the painting was sanctioned by a curator, the Met's authority of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the Painting had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The institution said in a statement that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to address claims from the Nazi period.

An official commented: At no time during the institution's custody of the piece was there any evidence that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – indeed, that information did not become accessible until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – specifically, it was documented that the work was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the comparable nature in the collection. Even though the institution respectfully stands by its stance that this piece entered the collection and was removed legally and well within all rules and regulations, the institution invites and will examine any new information that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel on behalf of the foundation stated: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the Goulandris family in the United States upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are convinced it will be once more.