🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was seized by the Nazis.

Case History

Per the court documents, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their home in Munich, Germany on the eve of the Second World War.

The legal action states that the institution, which acquired the painting in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, should have known it was likely stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the repatriation of the canvas along with compensation.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, claims the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Stern family escaped from the city of Munich to America in the late 1930s with their large family due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the regime designated the masterpiece as German cultural property and forbade the couple from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a trustee designated by the authorities sold the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the auction were deposited in a blocked account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or not long after, the canvas entered the United States and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was transferred through a art dealer to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his wife, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a institution in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a living relative of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action states that the defendants and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into ownership of the artwork; the family's possession of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the Third Reich confiscated the canvas from the family, forced the family into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs initiated a related lawsuit in CA in 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in May 2025.

The Met's Position

The legal action states that the museum's acquisition of the piece was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the Painting had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it is committed to its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

An official commented: Not once during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the family – in fact, that data did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – specifically, it was noted that the artwork was judged to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the similar kind in the inventory. Although The Met maintains its position that this work entered the collection and was sold lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum invites and will examine any additional details that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron representing the Goulandris Foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in Greece. The effort to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are certain it will be once more.