🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist canvas was stolen by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

As stated in the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the piece, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich on the eve of WWII.

The suit states that the museum, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was probably looted property. The family are now requesting the repatriation of the artwork along with damages.

Since the end of World War II, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through NYC, alleges the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from the city of Munich to the United States in 1936 with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was produced by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities designated the painting as property of the state and prohibited the couple from exporting it. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a representative designated by the Nazis auctioned the piece on the couple's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a blocked account, which the regime later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or not long after, the canvas entered New York and was acquired by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the Met, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his partner, Elise, in 1972.

Basil and Elise established the BEG in 1979, which runs a museum in Athens where the painting is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are listed as respondents. The legal action claims that the family and its related entities have covered up the painting's ownership and location from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide the manner and time the foundation came into control of the Painting; the family's possession of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Nazis confiscated the Painting from the family, coerced the family into parting with it via a trustee, and seized the money of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs filed a comparable case in CA in the year 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An legal challenge was also dismissed in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint contends that the institution's buying of the piece was authorized by a curator, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been seized by Nazis.

The museum said in a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to address claims from the Nazi period.

A representative stated: Not once during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had once belonged to the heirs – actually, that data did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the piece was judged to be of lower caliber than other pieces of the same type in the collection. Even though the museum upholds its stance that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum welcomes and will consider any new information that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron on behalf of the foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the institution and the Goulandris family in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are certain it will be again.