🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a Van Gogh oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple purchased the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were forced to flee their home in the German city of Munich on the eve of the Second World War.

The complaint states that the institution, which acquired the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was probably looted property. The heirs are now demanding the restitution of the canvas along with compensation.

Since the end of World War II, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through NYC, claims the court document.

Family's Flight

The Sterns escaped from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were unable to bring the painting, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities designated the artwork as property of the state and forbade the Sterns from taking it abroad. Once approved from a regime representative, a trustee assigned by the Nazis sold the piece on the Sterns' behalf. However, the money from the sale were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Later Transactions

By 1948, or shortly after, the canvas entered the United States and was purchased by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the Met, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a gallery in Athens where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

BEG and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action alleges that the defendants and its related entities have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and location from the heirs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal how and when the institution came into control of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from several years; and the reality that the Nazis looted the Painting from the Stern family, coerced the family into parting with it via a regime representative, and seized the proceeds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The Stern heirs filed a comparable case in the state of California in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the piece was sanctioned by a curator, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had likely been stolen by the regime.

The museum said in a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson remarked: At no time during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become accessible until many years after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for disposal – namely, it was noted that the work was deemed to be of lesser quality than other works of the same type in the inventory. Even though the museum respectfully stands by its stance that this work entered the inventory and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met welcomes and will consider any further evidence that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The action to sue and smear the institution and the Goulandris family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be once more.