People v. Branham
| Decision Date | 27 March 1967 |
| Citation | 278 N.Y.S.2d 494,53 Misc.2d 346 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York and State University of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Charles E. BRANHAM, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Julius L. Sackman, Asst. Atty. Gen., John C. Crary, Jr., State University Counsel, Albany, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York City (Edward J. Reilly, Jr., and John D. Goldman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
This controversy has been submitted to the Court by stipulation of the parties on agreed facts pursuant to CPLR 3222. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that the State University of New York has the authority to convey certain oil and gas interests which were acquired by it upon the merger of the University of Buffalo with the State University.
The mineral, royalty and leasehold interests in oil and gas involved in the controversy wer originally acquired by the University of Buffalo at the time it was a private institution of higher education, under the will of one Ralph Hochstetter, admitted to probate in Erie County on June 13, 1955. Under the terms of that will the testator gave to the University of Buffalo certain oil and gas royalties of which he died possessed, and he expressly provided that this gift was to be used and administered by it as a fund in connection with certain medical research studies in the University's Department of Medicine. The donor directed that the principal, as well as the income of such fund, was to be used only for such purpose or purposes above mentioned as are comprehended in the general objects authorized by the Charter of the University of Buffalo and that the principal of the fund could be used if the income, in the judgment and in the sole discretion of the Board of Trustees of the University, be insufficient. The will also provided that the fund was 'to be held and disposed of' by the University for purposes connected with the same medical research program. The University of Buffalo held the property and property interests acquired under the will and held and expended the income therefrom for the purposes specified by the donor until its merger into the State University of New York. Since the merger on August 31, 1962, the State University of New York has held, managed and administered all of the endowment assets which were owned by the University of Buffalo prior to the merger, including the assets acquired under the donor's will. In carrying out its duties in the management and use of the funds acquired by the State University of New York following the merger, its Board of Trustees offered the oil and gas interests so acquired for sale for the purpose of investing the proceeds in other types of income producing securities. As a result of competitive bidding, the defendant submitted the highest bid for the purchase of those interests which was accepted by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York. Thereafter, and upon tender of a deed of conveyance of said oil and gas interests, by the State University of New York, the defendant refused to accept the conveyance on the ground that title to such property interests was vested in the People of the State of New York and the State University was without authority to sell or convey.
The deed purports to convey all of the right, title and interest of the People of the State of New York acting by and through the State University of New York and of the right, title and interest of the State University of New York.
The State University of New York, created by an act of the Legislature (Education Law, section 352; L.1948, Ch. 695, as amended), is a corporate agency created within the State's Department of Education directly to carry out certain of its governmental functions in respect of higher education (State University of New York v. Syracuse University, 206 Misc. 1003, 137 N.Y.S.2d 916, aff'd 285 App.Div. 59, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539). As such, the State University is an integral part of the government of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ehrlich-Bober & Co., Inc. v. University of Houston, EHRLICH-BOBER
... ... Constr. Fund, 493 F.2d 177, 181-182; Simkin & Sons v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, D.C., 352 F.Supp. 177, 179, affd. 2 Cir., 486 F.2d 1393; People v. Branham, 53 Misc.2d 346-348, 278 N.Y.S.2d 494.) In our case the detail of our forum restriction incorporated in the waiver of sovereign immunity ... ...
-
Melvin, Matter of
...the State University is an integral part of the government of the State, and when it acts the State is the real party (People v. Branham, 53 Misc.2d 346, 278 N.Y.S.2d 494; State Univ. of N.Y. v. Syracuse Univ., 285 App.Div. 59, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539 There is no express language in Section 104 of......
-
Bell v. New York Higher Educ. Assistance Corp.
...University of the State of New York are State agencies subject to the Court of Claims Act. See Education Law § 352; People v. Branham, 53 Misc.2d 346, 278 N.Y.S.2d 494 (Sp.Ct.Albany Co.1967). Clearly, the specific reference to NYHEAC's status as "within" the State University is an indicatio......