Opinion

In re the Claim for Benefits under Article 18 of Labor Law

  • 262 A.D. 605
  • 31 N.Y.S.2d 435
  • 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5437
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Nov 12, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Heffernan
On the bench
Crapser, Heffernan, Schenck
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.8%

The opinion

Heffernan, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to sustain the decision of the Board. As I look at this question the hospital is *611 not exempt unless organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. The purposes outlined in the certificate of incorporation before us clearly demonstrate that this hospital is not organized exclusively for charitable purposes. The right of a corporation to exemption must be determined from the articles of incorporation alone and if any of its powers are not charitable, the corporation is not entitled to be classified as a charity. (Matter of De Peyster, 210 N. Y. 216 ; Matter of Beekman, 232 id. 365 ; Matter of Kennedy, 240 App. Div. 20 ; affd., 264 N. Y. 691 ; Helvering v. Colemann Gilbert, 296 U. S. 369 ; Matter of Mohawk Mills Assn., Inc., 260 App. Div. 433 .) It seems perfectly clear to me from the certificate of incorporation of appellant that it could operate without ever doing one act of charity. Certainly it has no legal obligation to do so. In order to be classified as a charitable corporation, an entity must not only be permitted to engage in charitable activities but it should be compelled to do so by its charter.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.