Opinion
CA 02-02482.
November 21, 2003.
Appeals from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Makowski, J.), entered September 13, 2002, which granted the Cplr article 78 petition.
Harter, Secrest Emery LLP, Buffalo (Carol E. Heckman of Counsel), for Respondents-Appellants John Friedlander, Mark Shields, M.D., M.B.A., and Michael Noe, M.D.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of Counsel), for Respondents-Appellants Michael Bernardino, M.D., and John Wright, M.D.
Kavinoky Cook, LLP, Buffalo (Marilyn A. Hochfield of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent.
Before: Present: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Kehoe, and Hayes, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination of the Graduate Medical and Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo (GMD) to eliminate its Otolaryngology Residency Training Program (ORTP). Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure under GMD's bylaws. Supreme Court erred in denying respondents' respective motion to dismiss and objections in point of law and in granting the petition. The alleged injuries to petitioner's medical career resulting from the determination to eliminate the ORTP fall outside the zone of interests protected by GMD's bylaws ( see generally Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 773-774; Matter of Brighton Residents Against Violence to Children v. MW Props., 304 A.D.2d 53, 56-57; cf. Gifford v. Guilderland Lodge, No 2480, B.P.O.E., 272 A.D.2d 721, 723). Further, petitioner's interest in the adherence of GMD to its own bylaws "represents nothing more than a concern for the protection of the general public," which is insufficient to confer standing on petitioner ( Matter of Sheehan v. Ambach, 136 A.D.2d 25, 28, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 804).
We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the motion and dismiss the petition. In view of our decision, we do not address respondents' remaining contentions.