🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a the Dutch artist oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple purchased the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich on the eve of the Second World War.

The suit argues that the museum, which obtained the painting in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly looted property. The descendants are now demanding the return of the painting along with compensation.

Since the end of WWII, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, states the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family escaped from Munich to America in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government designated the artwork as German cultural property and banned the Sterns from bringing it with them. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a agent appointed by the Nazis sold the artwork on the couple's behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the auction were held in a frozen account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork entered New York and was acquired by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which runs a institution in the Greek capital where the painting is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The lawsuit states that the defendants and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the heirs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the family's possession of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the Nazis stole the artwork from the Stern family, forced the Sterns into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the proceeds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a related lawsuit in California in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also denied in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The complaint states that the Met's purchase of the artwork was approved by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum must have known that the artwork had probably been looted by the regime.

The museum responded that it takes seriously its historical dedication to handle claims from the Nazi period.

An official commented: At no time during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any record that it had once belonged to the Stern family – indeed, that data did not become available until many years after the painting left the Met's possession.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of lower caliber than other pieces of the comparable nature in the inventory. Even though the institution respectfully stands by its view that this piece entered the collection and was removed legally and well within all standards and procedures, the Met welcomes and will consider any additional details that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron representing the Goulandris Foundation commented: The institution is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The attempt to sue and smear the organization and the family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are confident it will be a third time.