New York's Met Museum Confronts Lawsuit Over Supposedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Painting

The family members of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Met, alleging that a Van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

Per the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany just before World War II.

The suit argues that the Met, which obtained the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly confiscated property. The heirs are now demanding the restitution of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since World War II, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, alleges the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was created by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the regime classified the masterpiece as property of the state and prohibited the Sterns from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a regime representative, a representative appointed by the regime auctioned the piece on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the funds from the transaction were held in a blocked account, which the regime later took.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to the United States and was bought by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which operates a gallery in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

BEG and a living relative of the magnate are identified in the suit. The lawsuit alleges that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the heirs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure how and when the institution came into control of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the masterpiece from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the regime confiscated the artwork from the heirs, forced the Sterns into selling it via a regime representative, and confiscated the funds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants initiated a related lawsuit in California in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action contends that the museum's acquisition of the piece was approved by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European art and a renowned specialist on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had almost certainly been stolen by the Nazis.

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

An official commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the piece was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – actually, that information did not become available until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – in particular, it was recorded that the piece was judged to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. Although The Met respectfully stands by its stance that this artwork entered the holdings and was sold lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum invites and will examine any further evidence that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer representing the foundation said: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in Athens. The effort to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be a third time.