🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was looted by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in the German city of Munich just before WWII.

The legal action argues that the institution, which acquired the painting in the mid-1950s for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was probably looted property. The descendants are now seeking the restitution of the artwork along with damages.

Following WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Sterns escaped from the city of Munich to America in the late 1930s with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was painted by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and prohibited the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent designated by the authorities disposed of the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. However, the money from the sale were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork entered NYC and was purchased by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the institution, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple founded the BEG in the late 1970s, which runs a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing claims that the family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the institution came into ownership of the piece; the family's possession of the artwork from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Third Reich stole the Painting from the Stern family, pressured the family into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the funds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family filed a comparable case in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An legal challenge was also rejected in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the artwork was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had almost certainly been stolen by Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle claims from the Nazi period.

An official remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any record that it had once belonged to the family – indeed, that data did not become available until many years after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – specifically, it was documented that the piece was deemed to be of inferior standard than other works of the same type in the collection. Although the museum upholds its position that this artwork entered the collection and was deaccessioned legally and well within all rules and regulations, the Met welcomes and will consider any additional details that is discovered.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer acting for the foundation commented: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the institution and the Goulandris family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.