🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a the Dutch artist oil painting was looted by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

According to the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. The following year, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich just before the Second World War.

The complaint argues that the museum, which obtained the painting in the mid-1950s for $125,000, must have realized it was probably stolen property. The descendants are now demanding the restitution of the painting along with financial restitution.

Since the end of World War II, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, claims the court document.

Family's Flight

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from Munich to America in 1936 with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Before they left, the regime declared the artwork as property of the state and prohibited the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a agent designated by the regime auctioned the piece on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the money from the auction were held in a frozen account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

By 1948, or not long after, the canvas entered the United States and was bought by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair set up the BEG in 1979, which runs a institution in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The institution and a living relative of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing states that the Goulandris family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the family.

Currently, the foundation continue to conceal the manner and time the foundation came into possession of the Painting; the family's possession of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Nazis looted the canvas from the heirs, forced the Sterns into selling it via a regime representative, and confiscated the proceeds of the deal.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs submitted a similar complaint in California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also denied in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the piece was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by Nazis.

The Met said in a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to address issues related to WWII.

An official commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had once belonged to the heirs – in fact, that information did not become available until a long time after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the artwork was deemed to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though The Met respectfully stands by its stance that this artwork entered the collection and was removed legally and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution welcomes and will consider any further evidence that is discovered.

Foundation's Defense

Legal counsel on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation commented: BEG is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are convinced it will be again.