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.,
*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,
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.