New York's Met Museum Responds to Legal Action Over Allegedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Masterpiece

The descendants of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Met, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

As stated in the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were forced to flee their home in Munich, Germany prior to the Second World War.

The legal action contends that the museum, which obtained the artwork in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was probably looted property. The descendants are now demanding the return of the artwork along with financial restitution.

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

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from the city of Munich to America in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before they left, Nazi authorities classified the painting as German cultural property and prohibited the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a trustee appointed by the Nazis auctioned the painting on the family's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the Nazis later took.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or shortly after, the painting entered New York and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was transferred through a gallery to the Met, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his partner, Elise Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a gallery in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently shown.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a family member of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The filing claims that the defendants and its related entities have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and current place from the heirs.

Currently, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the institution came into control of the piece; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich confiscated the canvas from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a regime representative, and seized the funds of the sale.

Prior Cases

The family submitted a related lawsuit in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An further action was also denied in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint states that the museum's acquisition of the artwork was authorized by a curator, the institution's specialist of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The institution and its expert were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had almost certainly been seized by the Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to address issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that knowledge did not become known until a long time after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – specifically, it was noted that the work was judged to be of inferior standard than other works of the comparable nature in the inventory. Although the museum upholds its view that this piece entered the holdings and was sold properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any additional details that comes to light.

BEG's Response

William Charron on behalf of BEG said: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to take legal action against the Foundation and the defendants in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, twice. We are certain it will be a third time.