Metropolitan Museum Responds to Legal Challenge Over Supposedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Artwork

The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a Van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Nazis.

Historical Background

Per the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany prior to World War II.

The complaint states that the institution, which purchased the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly confiscated property. The descendants are now requesting the return of the artwork along with compensation.

Following World War II, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Sterns fled from their Munich home to California in the late 1930s with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities classified the artwork as property of the state and banned the Sterns from exporting it. Once approved from a regime representative, a trustee designated by the Nazis disposed of the artwork on the couple's behalf. But, the proceeds from the auction were placed in a restricted account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to NYC and was bought by a prominent figure, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the institution, which then sold it to prominent shipowner the magnate and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a museum in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a living relative of the magnate are identified in the suit. The filing claims that the defendants and its affiliates have covered up the artwork's provenance and location from the family.

Even now, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into control of the Painting; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Nazis confiscated the canvas from the family, forced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the sale.

Prior Cases

The descendants filed a similar complaint in the state of California in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An legal challenge was also denied in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint argues that the museum's acquisition of the piece was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European art and a renowned specialist on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the Painting had probably been stolen by the Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it is committed to its ongoing pledge to handle Nazi-era claims.

A representative stated: Never during the institution's custody of the painting was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the family – actually, that information did not become accessible until many years after the artwork left the institution's holdings.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – in particular, it was recorded that the piece was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the collection. Even though the institution maintains its stance that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned properly and well within all rules and regulations, the Met welcomes and will consider any additional details that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel on behalf of BEG stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the Goulandris family in the US upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, twice. We are convinced it will be a third time.