Hedley v. State University

New York Court of Appeals

Hedley v. State University

372 N.E.2d 35, 43 N.Y.2d 698, 401 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2507

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 35 (Hedley v. State University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hedley v. State University, 372 N.E.2d 35, 43 N.Y.2d 698, 401 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2507 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs. Amendment of the master plan is not a prerequisite to desisting from fulfilling parts of the plan. The statutes, as noted by Mr. Justice Titone in his concurring opinion before the remand to Special Term (54 AD2d 891), evince "that the master planning process for the development and expansion of higher education in the State is authorizing and permissive rather than mandatory and directive. The statutes in question deal primarily with long-range goals and priorities; they do not mandate either that specific educational programs be created under the master plan or that any such programs already in existence be abolished thereunder” (see Education Law, §§ 237, 354). Hence, elimination by the State University trustees, with the implied acquiescence of the Legislature, of the elementary education program at the State University at Stony Brook did not require [700]*700amendment of the master plan, or invocation of the procedures provided by law for such amendment.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs. Amendment of the master plan is not a prerequisite to desisting from fulfilling parts of the plan. The statutes, as noted by Mr. Justice Titone in his concurring opinion before the remand to Special Term (54 AD2d 891), evince "that the master planning process for the development and expansion of higher education in the State is authorizing and permissive rather than mandatory and directive. The statutes in question deal primarily with long-range goals and priorities; they do not mandate either that specific educational programs be created under the master plan or that any such programs already in existence be abolished thereunder” (see Education Law, §§ 237, 354). Hence, elimination by the State University trustees, with the implied acquiescence of the Legislature, of the elementary education program at the State University at Stony Brook did not require [700]*700amendment of the master plan, or invocation of the procedures provided by law for such amendment.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 N.E.2d 35, 43 N.Y.2d 698, 401 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedley-v-state-university-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack