The Met Responds to Lawsuit Over Allegedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Masterpiece

The heirs of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a the Dutch artist canvas was stolen by Nazi forces.

Case History

As stated in the legal filing, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich, Germany just before WWII.

The suit contends that the Met, which acquired the painting in 1956 for $125,000, should have known it was probably stolen property. The descendants are now demanding the repatriation of the canvas along with compensation.

Since the end of World War II, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through New York, alleges the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern escaped from their Munich home to the United States in 1936 with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Before they left, the regime declared the painting as a German cultural asset and forbade the family from bringing it with them. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a agent appointed by the regime auctioned the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. But, the funds from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or soon after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was bought by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a museum in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of Basil Goulandris are identified in the suit. The lawsuit alleges that the family and its associated organizations have covered up the masterpiece's history and location from the heirs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the institution came into control of the artwork; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a regime representative, and took the money of the deal.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a comparable case in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An further action was also denied in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European paintings and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert must have known that the artwork had probably been looted by Nazis.

The institution responded that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to resolve issues related to WWII.

A representative commented: At no time during the museum's possession of the painting was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the family – indeed, that information did not become accessible until a long time after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – namely, it was noted that the artwork was judged to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the similar kind in the inventory. While the institution respectfully stands by its stance that this piece entered the collection and was deaccessioned legally and well within all standards and procedures, the Met welcomes and will consider any additional details that emerges.

BEG's Response

William Charron acting for the foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the organization and the family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, multiple times. We are confident it will be once more.