Metropolitan Museum Responds to Lawsuit Over Supposedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Masterpiece

The descendants of a Jewish pair have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was stolen by Nazi forces.

Case History

Per the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were obliged to escape their residence in the German city of Munich prior to WWII.

The suit argues that the Met, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for $125,000, must have realized it was likely confiscated property. The family are now seeking the repatriation of the painting along with financial restitution.

Following World War II, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, claims the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from Munich to America in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was created by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities designated the painting as property of the state and banned the family from exporting it. Following authorization from a regime representative, a representative appointed by the regime sold the painting on the Sterns' behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a frozen account, which the regime later confiscated.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the museum, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a gallery in the Greek capital where the painting is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a living relative of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The lawsuit states that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have covered up the painting's ownership and current place from the family.

Even now, the foundation continue to conceal the manner and time the institution came into ownership of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the regime stole the artwork from the Stern family, coerced the family into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family initiated a similar complaint in CA in recently, but it was dismissed in the following years. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit argues that the Met's purchase of the painting was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the artwork had probably been looted by the regime.

The Met responded that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any record that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that information did not become known until many years after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – specifically, it was recorded that the work was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the holdings. Although the museum maintains its position that this artwork entered the collection and was sold properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum is open to and will review any additional details that emerges.

BEG's Response

William Charron representing the foundation stated: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The attempt to litigate and defame the organization and the family in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was previously dismissed, multiple times. We are certain it will be once more.