🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a the Dutch artist oil painting was seized by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

Per the legal filing, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. A year after, they were obliged to escape their home in the German city of Munich on the eve of the Second World War.

The complaint states that the museum, which obtained the artwork in the mid-1950s for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly stolen property. The family are now requesting the restitution of the canvas along with damages.

In the decades since the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, states the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family escaped from the city of Munich to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the painting as German cultural property and forbade the couple from taking it abroad. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a representative assigned by the authorities auctioned the piece on the Sterns' behalf. But, the proceeds from the sale were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to the United States and was bought by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently shown.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action alleges that the family and its related entities have covered up the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the manner and time the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Nazis stole the artwork from the family, forced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the funds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants initiated a comparable case in California in recently, but it was thrown out in the following years. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit states that the institution's buying of the piece was authorized by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been looted by the Nazis.

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

A spokesperson stated: Never during the institution's custody of the artwork was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the heirs – indeed, that data did not become known until many years after the painting left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – in particular, it was noted that the piece was deemed to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the same type in the collection. Even though the institution respectfully stands by its stance that this piece entered the collection and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all standards and procedures, the Met is open to and will review any further evidence that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer acting for the Goulandris Foundation stated: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.