Nazi-Stolen van Gogh Art Case Goes to New York for a Few Reasons

The heirs of a Jewish family who claim Nazis stole the family’s 1889 Vincent van Gogh painting “Olive Picking” have refiled their Holocaust-era art restitution claim in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a California federal court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The new complaint, filed Oct. 27, asserts conversion and unjust enrichment claims against the Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation, or BEG; the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Peter John Goulandris; and Wilton Trading SA. The suit alleges the painting was looted from the collection of Fritz and Hedwig Stern during Nazi persecution in Germany, trafficked through New York, purchased and later sold by the Met, and later transferred among Goulandris family entities.

The New York forum strategically positions the case by centering the alleged transactions and actors, maximizing the likelihood of finding personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and leveraging a six-year discovery window tied to recent publications of the painting’s whereabouts.

Background of Case

The Sterns, a Jewish married couple living in Munich, purchased “Olive Picking” in 1935. The lawsuit alleges that the looting occurred during the Nazi regime’s control of Germany, when the Sterns were forced to escape persecution under the Nuremberg Laws.

The Nazis prohibited the Sterns from bringing their art collection, deemed “German cultural property,” outside of Germany. Subsequently, the painting was looted through a Nazi-appointed “trustee” sale, the subsequent confiscation of sale proceeds, and post-war transfers in New York that allegedly concealed the painting’s tainted provenance—including acquisition by the Met in 1956 and deaccessioning in 1972.

The heirs initially filed in California because Hedwig Stern fled to California in 1936, became a US citizen, and died in Santa Monica in 1987, and her estate was probated in Los Angeles. The California probate court expressly authorized the special administrator to bring litigation on behalf of the estate. Those ties made California a sensible forum choice for the plaintiff.

The heirs couldn’t file earlier because they lacked “actual discovery” of the painting’s location and possessor, as required under the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery, or HEAR, Act. The painting’s location became clear only after Christie’s published a 2019 article featuring the work.

Personal jurisdiction nevertheless proved decisive. General jurisdiction was unavailable because none of the principal defendants were “at home” in California; specific jurisdiction failed because the operative conduct arose in New York and abroad, not from purposeful contacts with California.

The court dismissed without prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit appeal was later dismissed, effectively directing the heirs to a forum with meaningful defendant contacts.

New York Connection

The New York complaint, Silver v. Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation, layers multiple jurisdictional anchors: The Met bought, exhibited, and sold “Olive Picking” in New York, and the subsequent transfers and sales to Wilton Trading and BEG were effectuated by documents executed and notarized in New York.

Further, Peter Goulandris resides in New York and executed board and ownership functions there, while the Greek BEG transacted business through New York. Together, these facts frame general jurisdiction over the Met and specific long-arm jurisdiction over the Goulandris defendants.

New York also offers strategic advantages in cultural property disputes because of its courts’ and prosecutors’ deep expertise in adjudicating title, unique demand-and-refusal rule in art restitution disputes, and equitable defenses.

New York art restitution jurisprudence presents a mixed but navigable landscape for heirs. In Reif v. Nagy, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, upheld summary judgment and returned two Egon Schiele drawings to the Grünbaum heirs. The decision recognized Nazi-era takings voided subsequent transfers and reflected a willingness to credit secondary evidence of provenance and treat coerced Nazi-era transfers as voidable.

However, New York’s evidentiary thresholds and equitable defenses can be challenging decades after dispossession, as defendants often rely on prejudice stemming from witnesses and records being unavailable decades after involuntary transfer.

The Second Circuit’s decision in Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art illustrates the potency of laches even when statutory timeliness is satisfied under the HEAR Act. There, claims to Pablo Picasso’s “The Actor” were barred because the delay in demand and litigation, coupled with lost evidence and deceased witnesses, unduly prejudiced the Met’s defense, notwithstanding Congress’ extended limitations framework. Zuckerman confirms that HEAR’s discovery rule doesn’t displace equitable laches; plaintiffs must still show diligence and contest prejudice with tangible proof.

Upcoming Challenges

The defendants in Silver v. Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation will likely contest jurisdiction (especially for BEG), challenge the New York nexus, and invoke forum non conveniens. On the merits, they will likely assert laches and dispute the 1938 sale’s characterization, with the Met contesting conversion damages.

The path forward, navigating New York’s mixed legal landscape (exemplified by Reif and Zuckerman), will depend on the plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate diligence, overcome prejudice arguments with detailed evidentiary support, and convince the court that the HEAR Act warrants a merits review of title to “Olive Picking.”

The case is: Silver v. Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-08914, complaint filed 10/27/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Jana Farmer is a partner at Wilson Elser and chair of its art law practice.

Dara Elpren is an associate with Wilson Elser’s art law practice.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines