Metropolitan Museum Confronts Legal Challenge Over Supposedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Masterpiece

The descendants of a Jewish pair have filed a lawsuit against The Met, claiming that a the Dutch artist oil painting was looted by the Nazis.

Historical Background

As stated in the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich prior to the Second World War.

The complaint contends that the Met, which acquired the masterpiece in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely confiscated property. The family are now demanding the return of the artwork along with damages.

Following WWII, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through NYC, alleges the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Stern family fled from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as property of the state and forbade the couple from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent designated by the Nazis sold the artwork on the couple's behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a blocked account, which the authorities later seized.

Post-War History

By 1948, or soon after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the museum, which then sold it to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in Athens where the artwork is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a family member of the magnate are named as defendants. The legal action states that the family and its affiliates have covered up the artwork's provenance and current place from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the family, pressured the Sterns into parting with it via a trustee, and seized the proceeds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs initiated a similar complaint in California in recently, but it was thrown out in the following years. An legal challenge was also denied in May 2025.

The Met's Position

The complaint contends that the museum's acquisition of the artwork was approved by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European art and a renowned specialist on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The museum responded that it prioritizes its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Not once during the institution's custody of the artwork was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – indeed, that knowledge did not become available until a long time after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the work was judged to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the same type in the collection. While The Met upholds its stance that this work entered the inventory and was sold lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution is open to and will review any new information that emerges.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer on behalf of BEG said: BEG is a renowned institution in Athens. The effort to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, twice. We are convinced it will be once more.