New York's Met Museum Faces Legal Challenge Over Supposedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Artwork
The heirs of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was looted by the Third Reich.
Historical Background
According to the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the piece, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their dwelling in the German city of Munich prior to World War II.
The suit states that the institution, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely looted property. The descendants are now requesting the return of the painting along with financial restitution.
Following the war, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through NYC, claims the legal filing.
Family's Flight
Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to the United States in the late 1930s with their six children due to Nazi persecution. However, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in 1889.
Before they left, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and banned the couple from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a agent assigned by the Nazis sold the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. But, the funds from the transaction were placed in a restricted account, which the Nazis later seized.
Subsequent Ownership
In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork was brought to New York and was purchased by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Eventually, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the institution, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman Goulandris and his partner, Elise, in 1972.
Basil and Elise founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which runs a museum in Athens where the artwork is currently shown.
Legal Arguments
The institution and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the family.
To this day, the foundation continue to conceal the circumstances the foundation came into ownership of the artwork; the family's possession of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the Nazis looted the canvas from the Stern family, coerced the Sterns into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the proceeds of the sale.
Earlier Lawsuits
The descendants filed a similar complaint in CA in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An further action was also denied in May 2025.
Institution's Statement
The legal action states that the Met's purchase of the painting was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by Nazis.
The museum responded that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to resolve Nazi-era claims.
An official remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the family – actually, that data did not become available until a long time after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.
The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – specifically, it was documented that the piece was judged to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the inventory. Although the institution respectfully stands by its view that this work entered the collection and was sold properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any additional details that emerges.
Foundation's Defense
Legal counsel on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation stated: The institution is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was previously dismissed, twice. We are certain it will be again.
