Albany Medical College v. McShane
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Odrich v. Trustees of Columbia University (New York Supreme Court 2002)
- Berlin v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Ill. 1997)
- Berlin v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Ill. 1997)
- Glassman v. ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc. (N.Y. 2010)
- Odrich v. Trustees of Columbia University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Rabin v. Hirshfield (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Medicare Beneficiaries Defense Fund v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York Supreme Court 1993)
- Casillo v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- Bourke v. Albany Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Frontier Insurance v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1989)
- Dolin v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Paterna v. Zandieh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Defendant was employed by plaintiff, a State-chartered medical college, as a teacher, researcher, and supervisor of its patient care program in its division of plastic surgery. After defendant disassociated himself from the college and began his own private plastic surgery practice, plaintiff commenced this action, seeking to recover, among other things, office equipment, patient records, and fees and revenues from patient care allegedly diverted by the defendant.
Special Term granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, but granted leave to appeal on a certified question.
The claim that plaintiff may not share in fees generated by physicians who are faculty members is "farfetched at best” (Adamsons v Wharton, 771 F2d 41, 43). Because plaintiff has a corporate charter empowering it to promote medical science and instruction, its treatment of patients does not constitute an illegal corporate practice of medicine (see, Public Health Law § 2801-a; People v Woodbury Dermatological Inst., 192 NY 454, 457) or illegal fee splitting in violation of Education Law § 6509-a and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (4). Courts have consistently rebuffed challenges to faculty medical practice plans similar to the one adopted by plaintiff (e.g., Adamsons v Wharton, supra; Gross v University of Tenn., 620 F2d 109, 110; Kountz v State Univ., 87 AD2d 605, affg 109 Misc 2d 319, appeal dismissed and lv denied 58 NY2d 747), and we perceive no reason to decline to follow these authorities.
*984 Finally, the financial and patient records generated are clearly the property of plaintiff, subject to defendant’s right to obtain copies (see, Public Health Law § 17; Matter of Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Center, 104 AD2d 368; Damsker v Haque, 93 AD2d 729).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.