🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging that a the Dutch artist canvas was looted by the Nazis.

Case History

As stated in the lawsuit, the Stern couple acquired the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany on the eve of the Second World War.

The legal action contends that the museum, which purchased the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was probably looted property. The descendants are now requesting the restitution of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since the war, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, claims the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns escaped from the city of Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were unable to bring the painting, which was produced by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Before they left, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and banned the family from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a trustee appointed by the Nazis sold the painting on the family's behalf. However, the money from the transaction were placed in a blocked account, which the regime later seized.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or shortly after, the canvas arrived in NYC and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple set up the BEG in the late 1970s, which manages a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Claims and Defenses

BEG and a living relative of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The lawsuit alleges that the Goulandris family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the family.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal how and when the institution came into ownership of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich confiscated the Painting from the heirs, pressured the family into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the funds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants initiated a similar complaint in CA in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also rejected in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint contends that the institution's buying of the piece was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European paintings and a renowned specialist on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the Painting had almost certainly been looted by the Nazis.

The Met said in a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to resolve issues related to WWII.

An official remarked: Never during the institution's custody of the painting was there any evidence that it had once belonged to the heirs – actually, that data did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for disposal – in particular, it was noted that the work was judged to be of lesser quality than other works of the same type in the inventory. Even though the museum maintains its stance that this piece entered the holdings and was removed lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum invites and will examine any further evidence that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel representing the foundation commented: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The effort to take legal action against the Foundation and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be once more.