The Met Faces Lawsuit Over Supposedly Nazi-Plundered Van Gogh Artwork
The descendants of a Jewish pair have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging that a the Dutch artist oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.
Historical Background
As stated in the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich prior to the Second World War.
The legal action contends that the museum, which obtained the masterpiece in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly looted property. The descendants are now demanding the repatriation of the painting along with compensation.
In the decades since the war, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, purchased and sold in and through the city of New York, alleges the legal filing.
The Sterns' Escape
The Sterns escaped from Munich to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.
Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and prohibited the family from exporting it. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a representative designated by the Nazis auctioned the artwork on the family's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later confiscated.
Later Transactions
In 1948, or shortly after, the painting was brought to NYC and was bought by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the museum, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his partner, Elise, in 1972.
The Greek couple established the BEG in the late 1970s, which runs a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently on display.
Legal Arguments
The foundation and a surviving nephew of the magnate are listed as respondents. The filing claims that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have covered up the masterpiece's history and location from the plaintiffs.
Even now, the foundation continue to hide how and when the foundation came into control of the Painting; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich looted the artwork from the heirs, pressured the couple into parting with it via a regime representative, and confiscated the proceeds of the deal.
Earlier Lawsuits
The Stern heirs submitted a similar complaint in California in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also rejected in May 2025.
Institution's Statement
The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the painting was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had probably been seized by the Nazis.
The Met said in a statement that it is committed to its historical dedication to handle issues related to WWII.
A representative remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – indeed, that data did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.
The Met's sale of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the piece was judged to be of lower caliber than other pieces of the same type in the holdings. Although The Met maintains its stance that this artwork entered the collection and was removed properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution is open to and will review any new information that is discovered.
Foundation's Defense
A lawyer acting for the Goulandris Foundation said: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The effort to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the US upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was already thrown out, multiple times. We are confident it will be again.