🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have filed a lawsuit against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

As stated in the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in 1935. A year after, they were obliged to escape their home in Munich prior to World War II.

The suit states that the Met, which obtained the artwork in the 1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was almost certainly stolen property. The descendants are now demanding the repatriation of the painting along with damages.

Since the end of WWII, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family fled from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were unable to bring the painting, which was produced by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and forbade the couple from taking it abroad. Once approved from a Nazi official, a trustee assigned by the authorities sold the painting on the family's behalf. However, the proceeds from the sale were placed in a frozen account, which the authorities later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork was brought to NYC and was acquired by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was transferred through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner the magnate and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a museum in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently on display.

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 concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and location from the heirs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide how and when the BEG came into possession of the Painting; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Third Reich confiscated the Painting from the Stern family, coerced the family into disposing of it via a regime representative, and confiscated the funds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family filed a similar complaint in California in 2022, but it was dismissed in the following years. An legal challenge was also denied in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit contends that the museum's acquisition of the artwork was authorized by a curator, the institution's specialist of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The institution and its expert must have known that the artwork had likely been seized by the regime.

The institution issued a statement that it takes seriously its historical dedication to address claims from the Nazi period.

An official stated: Never during the institution's custody of the artwork was there any documentation that it had once belonged to the family – indeed, that information did not become available until a long time after the painting left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the inventory. Even though the institution respectfully stands by its view that this work entered the collection and was removed lawfully and well within all standards and procedures, the museum is open to and will review any new information that comes to light.

BEG's Response

William Charron representing the foundation stated: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in Athens. The action to litigate and defame the organization and the family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be again.