The heirs of a Jewish family who claim Nazis stole the family\u2019s 1889 Vincent van Gogh painting \u201cOlive Picking\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
The new complaint<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s whereabouts.<\/p>\n Background of Case<\/p>\n The Sterns, a Jewish married couple living in Munich, purchased \u201cOlive Picking\u201d in 1935. The lawsuit alleges that the looting occurred during the Nazi regime\u2019s control of Germany, when the Sterns were forced to escape persecution under the Nuremberg Laws.<\/p>\n The Nazis prohibited the Sterns from bringing their art collection, deemed \u201cGerman cultural property,\u201d outside of Germany. Subsequently, the painting was looted through a Nazi-appointed \u201ctrustee\u201d sale, the subsequent confiscation of sale proceeds, and post-war transfers in New York that allegedly concealed the painting\u2019s tainted provenance\u2014including acquisition by the Met in 1956 and deaccessioning in 1972.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The heirs couldn\u2019t file earlier because they lacked \u201cactual discovery\u201d of the painting\u2019s location and possessor, as required under the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery, or HEAR, Act. The painting\u2019s location became clear only after Christie\u2019s published a 2019 article featuring the work.<\/p>\n Personal jurisdiction nevertheless proved decisive. General jurisdiction was unavailable because none of the principal defendants were \u201cat home\u201d in California; specific jurisdiction failed because the operative conduct arose in New York and abroad, not from purposeful contacts with California.<\/p>\n The court dismissed without prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit appeal was later dismissed, effectively directing the heirs to a forum with meaningful defendant contacts.<\/p>\n New York Connection<\/p>\n The New York complaint, Silver v. Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation, layers multiple jurisdictional anchors: The Met bought, exhibited, and sold \u201cOlive Picking\u201d in New York, and the subsequent transfers and sales to Wilton Trading and BEG were effectuated by documents executed and notarized in New York.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n New York also offers strategic advantages in cultural property disputes because of its courts\u2019 and prosecutors\u2019 deep expertise in adjudicating title, unique demand-and-refusal rule in art restitution disputes, and equitable defenses.<\/p>\n New York art restitution jurisprudence presents a mixed but navigable landscape for heirs. In Reif v. Nagy<\/a>, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, upheld summary judgment and returned two Egon Schiele drawings to the Gr\u00fcnbaum 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.<\/p>\n However, New York\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The Second Circuit\u2019s decision<\/a> in Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art<\/a> illustrates the potency of laches even when statutory timeliness is satisfied under the HEAR Act. There, claims to Pablo Picasso\u2019s \u201cThe Actor\u201d were barred because the delay in demand and litigation, coupled with lost evidence and deceased witnesses, unduly prejudiced the Met\u2019s defense, notwithstanding Congress\u2019 extended limitations framework. Zuckerman confirms that HEAR\u2019s discovery rule doesn\u2019t displace equitable laches; plaintiffs must still show diligence and contest prejudice with tangible proof.<\/p>\n Upcoming Challenges<\/p>\n 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\u2019s characterization, with the Met contesting conversion damages.<\/p>\n The path forward, navigating New York\u2019s mixed legal landscape (exemplified by Reif and Zuckerman), will depend on the plaintiff\u2019s 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 \u201cOlive Picking.\u201d<\/p>\n The case is: Silver v. Basil and Elise Goulandris Foundation<\/a>, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-08914, complaint filed 10\/27\/25.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Author Information<\/p>\n Jana Farmer<\/a> is a partner at Wilson Elser and chair of its art law practice.<\/p>\n Dara Elpren<\/a> is an associate with Wilson Elser\u2019s art law practice.<\/p>\n