New York's Met Museum Confronts Legal Action Over Allegedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Painting

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Met, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

According to the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern acquired the piece, titled Gathering Olives, in 1935. The following year, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich, Germany just before the Second World War.

The legal action argues that the museum, which acquired the masterpiece in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, should have known it was likely stolen property. The family are now demanding the return of the canvas along with damages.

Since the end of WWII, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, alleges the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Sterns fled from Munich to the United States in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a regime representative, a trustee appointed by the regime sold the piece on the Sterns' behalf. However, the funds from the auction were placed in a restricted account, which the Nazis later seized.

Later Transactions

By 1948, or soon after, the painting arrived in the United States and was bought by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was sold through a gallery to the museum, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the BEG in 1979, which runs a museum in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a family member of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the family and its related entities have covered up the artwork's provenance and location from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the foundation continue to hide the circumstances the foundation came into ownership of the artwork; the family's possession of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the regime stole the artwork from the heirs, forced the Sterns into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The Stern heirs filed a related lawsuit in CA in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also rejected in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit contends that the museum's acquisition of the artwork was authorized by a curator, the museum's curator of European paintings and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum must have known that the artwork had probably been stolen by the regime.

The Met said in a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to handle Nazi-era claims.

An official remarked: Never during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – in fact, that information did not become known until several decades after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the artwork was considered to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. While the institution maintains its stance that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned legally and well within all standards and procedures, the museum welcomes and will consider any further evidence that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

Legal counsel representing BEG stated: The institution is a renowned institution in Greece. The effort to litigate and defame the Foundation and the family in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be again.