Metropolitan Museum Confronts Legal Challenge Over Allegedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Painting
The descendants of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was looted by the Nazis.
Historical Background
Per the legal filing, the Stern couple acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their home in Munich, Germany prior to World War II.
The suit argues that the Met, which acquired the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The family are now demanding the restitution of the artwork along with financial restitution.
In the decades since the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through NYC, claims the legal filing.
Family's Flight
The Sterns fled from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.
Prior to their departure, the regime classified the painting as German cultural property and forbade the couple from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a agent designated by the authorities auctioned the painting on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the transaction were deposited in a blocked account, which the regime later took.
Subsequent Ownership
By 1948, or soon after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was bought by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his partner, Elise, in 1972.
The Goulandris pair established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently shown.
Claims and Defenses
The foundation and a surviving nephew of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The filing alleges that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have covered up the painting's ownership and current place from the plaintiffs.
Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the artwork; the family's possession of the masterpiece from several years; and the truth that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the heirs, pressured the couple into disposing of it via a trustee, and took the proceeds of the sale.
Previous Legal Action
The Stern heirs initiated a similar complaint in California in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An legal challenge was also rejected in spring 2025.
The Met's Position
The lawsuit states that the museum's acquisition of the piece was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the masterpiece had likely been seized by Nazis.
The Met issued a statement that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to address Nazi-era claims.
A spokesperson commented: At no time during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had once belonged to the Stern family – actually, that information did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.
The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – in particular, it was recorded that the work was considered to be of inferior standard than other works of the similar kind in the holdings. Even though the museum maintains its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all standards and procedures, the Met invites and will examine any additional details that comes to light.
BEG's Response
Legal counsel representing BEG said: The institution is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The effort to take legal action against the Foundation and the defendants in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, twice. We are certain it will be a third time.