Smithers v. St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center
New York Appellate Division
723 N.Y.S.2d 426 (2001)
In a June 16, 1971 letter to St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center (Hospital) (defendant), R. Brinkley Smithers announced his intention to make a $10 million gift to the Hospital over time to establish an alcoholism treatment center. In the letter, he retained a veto power for himself over the center’s project plans and staff appointments. As it was Smithers’ intention that the treatment center be established in a separate facility, the Hospital purchased a building and opened the Smithers Alcoholism Treatment and Training Center (Center) in 1973. By 1978, Smithers informed the Hospital that no further gift funds would be transferred because the Hospital was not complying with the terms of his gift. After the hospital president convinced Smithers of the Hospital’s intention to strictly comply with the terms of the gift, Smithers completed the gift in 1983. When Smithers died in 1994, he and his wife, Adele Smithers (Adele) (plaintiff), had been planning, at the Hospital’s request, a gala to raise funds for the Center. However, the Hospital suddenly announced in 1995 its intention to relocate the Center and instructed Mrs. Smithers to cancel the event. When Mrs. Smithers’ accountants discovered that the Hospital had been misappropriating gift funds, she alerted the Attorney General (AG) (defendant), who commenced an investigation and learned that the Hospital had been transferring the gift funds to its general fund as “loans.” Although the Hospital complied with the Attorney General’s demand to return the funds, the Hospital persisted in its plan to sell the building where the Center was located. The AG believed that the terms of the gift did not prevent the Hospital from selling the building and agreed with the Hospital that it would pay $1 million from the proceeds of the sale to the Center. Mrs. Smithers brought an action as Special Administratrix of J. Brinkley Smithers’ estate against the Hospital and the AG, both of whom moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Mrs. Smithers lacked standing because she represented the beneficiaries and had no tangible stake in the gift. On appeal, the new AG reversed its position, agreeing that all net proceeds from sale of the building belonged to the Center and therefore the issue of standing need not be reached. While the appeal was pending, the AG and Hospital reached a new agreement. The AG again reversed his position, asserting to the Appellate Division that only an Attorney General had standing to enforce the gift.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Ellerin, J.)
Dissent (Friedman. J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.