Liberty Maimonides Hospital v. Felberg

• Decision Date: 18 January 1957
• Citation: 158 N.Y.S.2d 913,4 Misc.2d 291
• Parties: LIBERTY MAIMONIDES HOSPITAL, Plaintiff, v. Jack FELBERG, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 913

158 N.Y.S.2d 913

4 Misc.2d 291

LIBERTY MAIMONIDES HOSPITAL, Plaintiff, v. Jack FELBERG, Defendant.

Sullivan County Court.

Jan. 18, 1957.

Garber & Stier, Liberty (Leonard Garber, Liberty, of counsel), for plaintiff, in support of motion.

Morris M. Oppenheim, Monticello, for defendant, in opposition.

LAWRENCE H. COOKE, Judge.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.

For the most part the facts are not in dispute. It appears, among other things, that defendant on September 6, 1951 signed an instrument stating: 'To help provide a fund for the construction of a new and modern Maimonides Hospital, and in consideration of the pledges of others for the same purpose, I hereby promise to pay to Maimonides Hospital Building Fund the following sum', the amount listed being $600 to be paid in four installments on certain specified dates and beneath defendant's signature it was specified that 'Checks should be made payable to Maimonides Hospital Building Fund and sent to Drawer 590, Liberty, New York'; that defendant gave the written pledge card to the chairman of the hospital building fund committee of the plaintiff; that plaintiff is a membership corporation organized in 1924 under the name of Maimonides Lodge Hospital Association which name was changed in about December of 1951 to Liberty Maimonides Hospital; that since its inception plaintiff has operated a hospital at Liberty, Sullivan County, New York, which at first and for years and until about December of 1951 was known as Maimonides Hospital and thereafter as Liberty Maimonides Hospital; that in 1950 plaintiff initiated steps to construct a new hospital building and, thereafter, architects were retained, an application for federal funds was made and approved, a fund raising campaign was conducted in the course of which about $340,000 was raised, interim loans were made and the building was constructed and equipped and opened in June of 1953; that a mortgage of $130,000 was obtained and that plaintiff has outstanding obligations to meet which were incurred in the construction of the new hospital; that the plaintiff's board of directors designated a separate fund known as 'Maimonides Hospital Building Fund' into which all pledge moneys were deposited; that defendant has made no payments on account of the said instrument which he signed; and that in Sullivan County, which includes Liberty, there is no other hospital bearing the name 'Maimonides' or any similar name.

Defendant opposes recovery on the ground that plaintiff is not the real party in interest, claiming that he, the defendant, is not indebted to this plaintiff.

The decisions of courts in this state and the trend of modern authority indicate a tendency to favor the enforcement of charitable subscriptions. In re Borden's Will, Sur., 41 N.Y.S.2d 269, 274, affirmed 267 App.Div. 823, 830, 47 N.Y.S.2d 120; First Methodist Episcopal Church of Mount Vernon v. Estate of Howard, 133 Misc. 723, 726, 233 N.Y.S. 451, 454, affirmed 233 App.Div. 753, 250 N.Y.S. 906; Matter of Lord's Will, 175 Misc. 921, 923, 25 N.Y.S.2d 747, 749; Eaton v. Reich, 258 N.Y. 202, 205, 179 N.E. 385, 386; Washington Heights Methodist Episcopal Church v. Comfort, 138 Misc. 236, 238, 246 N.Y.S. 450, 452; 115 A.L.R. 590.

Our courts have ruled definitely that charitable subscriptions are enforcible on the ground that they constitute an offer of a unilateral contract which, when accepted by the charity by incurring liability in reliance thereon, becomes a binding obligation. I. & I. Holding Corp. v. Gainsburg, 276 N.Y. 427, 433, 12 N.E.2d 532, 533, 115 A.L.R. 582; Matter of Metz, 262 App.Div. 508, 511, 30 N.Y.S.2d 502, 504; Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N.Y. 96, 100, 60 N.E. 325, 326; In re Borden's Will, supra; 1 Restatement of the Law of Contracts § 45. An invitation or request to the hospital to carry on its work need not be expressed in the subscription agreement, it may be implied; it need not on its face require the hospital to do or refrain from doing any particular thing; the subscription agreement being not a contract, but an offer to contract, which, when acted upon by incurring liability, become a binding obligation. I. & I. Holding Corp. v. Gainsburg, supra, 276 N.Y. 433, 12 N.E.2d 533. But if a thing is to be done by the promisee, be it ever so small, this is a sufficient consideration to sustain the promise. Matter of Taylor's Estate, 251 N.Y. 257, 262, 167 N.E. 434, 436. Here, the consummation of a unilateral contract may be deduced from the implied request of the defendant to plaintiff to proceed with the construction of the hospital building and its action to that end. Matter of Lord's Will, 175 Misc. 921, 925, 927, 25 N.Y.S.2d 747, 751, 753, supra; 1 Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., § 116, p. 404. It was not necessary that plaintiff execute or sign the agreement itself. Eraser Company v. Kaufman, 138 N.Y.S.2d 743, 751.

Considering, more particularly, defendant's contention, concerning a real party in interest, to be such a real party in interest, a plaintiff must have some title, legal or equitable, to the claim. Spencer v. Standard Chemicals & Metals Corp., 237 N.Y. 479, 480-481, 143 N.E. 651, 652. The test is as to whether or not the plaintiff has such title in the cause of action so that a recovery or satisfaction by it will protect the defendant from the claims of third parties. St. James Co. v. Security Trust & Life Ins. Co., 82 App.Div. 242, 246, 81 N.Y.S. 739, 741, affirmed 178 N.Y. 560, 70 N.E. 1108; American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Yorkville Bank of New York, 122 Misc. 616, 627, 204 N.Y.S. 621, 631, affirmed 210 App.Div. 885, 206 N.Y.S. 879; General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 200 App.Div. 794, 802, 193 N.Y.S. 903, 910, affirmed 235 N.Y. 133, 139 N.E. 216. Here, there is no question but that plaintiff has the sole title to the Maimonides Hospital Building Fund and there is no proof to the contrary. Applying the prescribed test, it is seen readily that a recovery or satisfaction by plaintiff will protect defendant from the claims of third parties. The offer of defendant as set forth in the subscription agreement in reality was made to the plaintiff even though payments were to be made to a fund of the plaintiff, and plaintiff has accepted that offer by incurring liability in reliance thereon and by proceeding with the construction of the new hospital building referred to in the subscription agreement.

Subscription agreements containing promises to pay to a treasurer of a college or his order, Keuka College v. Ray, supra; Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown, 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E. 173, 57 A.L.R. 980, and for the 'War Memorial Building of First M. E. Church, Mt. Vernon', Matter of First Methodist Episcopal Church v. Estate of Howard, supra, 133 Misc. 725, 233 N.Y.S. 453, and a note payable to the trustees of a church, Roberts v. Cobb, 103 N.Y. 600, 9 N.E. 500, have been enforced.

In Matter of de Brabant's Estate, 197 Misc. 923, 927, 95 N.Y.S.2d 324, 328 decedent made a pledge 'to give as a part of the new property to be erected for Student Work in Paris, France, by the American Episcopal Church of the Holy Trinity' and also a second pledge which read in part as follows, 197 Misc. at page 930, 95 N.Y.S.2d at page 330: 'I hereby direct that the income already received and receivable on the fifty thousand dollars paid by me to the American Students' Social Center of Paris, France, (Inc.), toward the cost of erection of a Student Chapel may be used for the upkeep and maintenance of Church Services, temporarily being held in one of the halls of said Students' Social Center and until I shall make a third and final payment of twenty five thousand dollars to said Students' Social Center which I agree to do.' One of the objections to the claim was to the effect that the claimant was not the real party in interest but the court held, 197 Misc. at pages 936-937, 95 N.Y.S.2d at page 336:

'The claimant is the real party in interest. It was organized to carry on the work performed by the Center, and it is, in fact, carrying on such work. That the decedent knew of the incorporation and succession, and never objected, but, instead, tacitly acquiesced, is patent. Her contributions were to the 'Students' Social Center', and there is no contention that the contributions were or will be diverted to other purposes. The work is the same, the personnel is the same, the object of the gifts is the same. Such change as there was had relation to form, not substance.'

In Tioga County General Hospital v. Tidd, 164 Misc. 273, 298 N.Y.S. 460, defendant made a subscription to the construction and equipment fund for the Tioga County General Hospital at Waverly, N. Y., the fund raising campaign having been conducted by a general committee later transformed into the corporate plaintiff. One of the defenses was that plaintiff was not the real party in interest but the court held 164 Misc. at page 286, 298 N.Y.S. at page 475 'One of the primary requisites is that the party bringing the action have such an interest that if a recovery be had the defendant will be protected from the assertion of further claims upon the same cause of action. Here there can be no doubt that, if the plaintiff recovers in this action, the defendant will be fully protected from any effort on the part of any other party to recover upon the same subscription.'

In Mechanicville War Chest, Inc., v. Butterfield, 110 Misc. 257, 261, 181 N.Y.S. 428, 430 defendant signed a card reading in part: 'I hereby enlist as a member of the Mechanicville War Chest. I agree to pay monthly for one year to F. S. Clute, treasurer, or his successor in office the sum of twelve dollars,...