IN RE: The MODIFICATION OF Endowment Funds of CAZENOVIA COLLEGE (2026)

Introduction

Cazenovia College ("Cazenovia") and Le Moyne College ("Le Moyne") jointly petition the Court, pursuant to New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law ("N-PCL") § 555, seeking to transfer certain institutional endowment funds from Cazenovia to Le Moyne on the grounds that the restrictions for the funds have become impossible to achieve ("Restricted Funds"). The donors of the funds oppose the petition and seek transfers to alternate beneficiaries. The Attorney General ("AG") appears in the proceedings and expressly disagrees with the reasoning behind petitioners' request for relief and urges the Court to give all donors the opportunity to be heard in determining the proper and appropriate beneficiaries of the subject Restricted Funds.

Background

Petitioner, Cazenovia, was a private liberal arts college founded in 1824 in Cazenovia, New York. After determining that it could not be financially viable beyond the short-term, Cazenovia made the decision to permanently cease operating as an institution of higher education on June 30, 2023. Since that time, Cazenovia has been in the process of dissolving and winding up its affairs.¹ As part of those activities, it has attempted to find an alternative placement for certain endowments and other donor-Restricted Funds for which it is currently responsible. Cazenovia held assets that constituted approximately 121 Restricted Funds, which had a balance of approximately $7,846,073.00. It also had 3 restricted trust gifts valued at $232,756.00.

Joint petitioner, Le Moyne, is 1 of 24 institutions that Cazenovia entered into a teach-out agreement with to provide its students with the opportunity to transfer with full recognition of credits earned at Cazenovia. Le Moyne and Cazenovia also entered into a Transfer of Endowment, Records Maintenance and Preservation of Legacy Agreement, pursuant to which Le Moyne agreed to provide services related to the maintenance of financial, human resources, and alumni records and data hosting services.

On or about February 6, 2025, Cazenovia and Le Moyne jointly commenced a special proceeding by filing an initial Petition (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1-14) seeking, pursuant to N-PCL § 555 (b) and (c), and Estates, Powers & Trusts Law (EPTL) § 8-1.1(c), to modify the donor-Restricted Funds for the purposes of transferring the funds to Le Moyne, and to permit Le Moyne to utilize each such fund in a manner consistent with its intended purpose. Pursuant to N-PCL § 555, petitioners made a good faith attempt to notify all donors and the AG by filing an Amended Verified Petition to provide the interested parties with an opportunity to be heard regarding the transfer (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 22-35). Of the 124 donors, 12 objected to the transfer to Le Moyne.² On May 22, 2025, the AG filed a "Conditional Statement of No Objection" to the transfer of the 112 funds/trusts, so long as, a separate petition was filed regarding the disposition and/or resolution of the 12 remaining funds that were subject to donor restrictions (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 36).

In light of foregoing, on May 22, 2025, this Court issued an Order permitting the immediate transfer of the 112 Restricted Funds/trusts (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 33), which had a balance of approximately $7,311,387.39, to Le Moyne to be utilized in a manner consistent with the purpose of each such fund and directed petitioners to file a separate petition addressing the remaining 12 Restricted Funds (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38).

The Restricted Funds

On August 20, 2025, Cazenovia and Le Moyne jointly filed a separate Verified Petition concerning the remaining Restricted Funds seeking, pursuant to N-PCL § 555, to transfer the remaining funds to Le Moyne (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 39-53). Petitioners contend that Le Moyne is the best suited institution to use the Restricted Funds in a manner that is consistent with the intentions of the donors. Petitioners point to the fact that Le Moyne and Cazenovia operated in close geographic proximity to each other, with a similar focus on serving the needs of that area, and that Le Moyne provides educational programs to a similar population base and provides similar educational programs and extracurricular activities. Le Moyne is also conducting Teach-Out Programs, operates based on the similar values and, under the Transfer of Endowment, Records Maintenance and Preservation of Legacy Agreement, is committed to preserving the legacy of Cazenovia.

Subsequent thereto, 9 of the 12 donors interposed objections to the Le Moyne transfer and requested that the funds be transferred to alternate beneficiaries.³ Four of the donors are represented by counsel and interposed formal Verified Answers with Cross-Petitions (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 61, 73, 106 and 123). The remaining five donors appeared pro se by submitting written objections and requested alternate beneficiaries (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 74, 75, 79).

Petitioners contend that, pursuant to N-PCL § 555(c), only the institution has the right to petition and there is no right afforded to individual donors to cross-petition. They further argue that the statute does not require that the modification be made in accordance with the donor's probable intention nor does it implicate the donor's intentions except as set forth in the gift instrument. Petitioners conclude that, pursuant to N-PCL § 555(c), individual donors are permitted to be heard but that the statute does not allow them to re-direct funds that they parted with years ago.

The individual donors (1) contend that Le Moyne lacks standing to petition the Court, (2) object to the proposed transfer of the Restricted Funds to Le Moyne on the grounds that it is inconsistent with their respective original intent and (3) request that the funds be directed to alternate beneficiaries that have similar purpose "as near as possible" to their original intent.

The AG does not agree with the petitioners. The AG urges the Court to give all donors objecting to the relief sought by petitioners, the opportunity to be heard, whether formal intervenors, or those who made "pro se" submissions (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos.74-79). Moreover, the AG agrees with donors that not only should they be heard but that their substantive positions concerning donor intent and transfer of the Restricted Funds to an appropriate charitable beneficiary, be taken into consideration pursuant to N-PCL § 555 (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 120 and 136). The AG argues that it is well within the Court's authority to apply equitable principles (cy pres and/or equitable deviation) to the intent and wishes of the objecting donors in determining the proper and appropriate transfer of the subject Restricted Funds.

Analysis

The Restricted Funds involved in this matter are classified as endowment funds (N-PCL § 551[b]). An endowment is a gift that establishes a permanent source of income to a not-for-profit corporation for a designated purpose. As endowments are designed to last in perpetuity, the specific purpose designated by the donor may eventually become impracticable or impossible. Under the cy pres doctrine, courts may modify the fund's purpose, if necessary, in order to ensure that the endowment continues to serve a meaningful charitable purpose in the future. The term cy pres is shorthand for the Norman French phrase "cy pres comme possible," which in English means "as near as possible." The roots of the equitable doctrine of cy pres are found in cases in England from the Middle Ages, and cy pres cases became relatively numerous after the dissolution of the monasteries under King Henry VIII (see Jones, History of the Law of Charity, 1532-1827 [1986]). Under the cy pres doctrine, courts may modify a charitable gift when the original purpose cannot be fulfilled, directing the funds to a similar purpose "as near as possible" to the donor's original intent (see In re Estate of Wilson, 59 NY2d 461, 472 [1983]). Equitable deviation is closely related to cy pres. It is the doctrine fashioned by courts of equity to deal with administrative or procedural restrictions imposed by a donor, rather than restrictions on charitable purpose. Distinguishing between equitable deviation and cy pres is not always easy, because in many cases, the restriction can be characterized as both purpose-related and administrative.⁴

On September 17, 2010, New York Governor David Paterson signed into law the New York Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (NYPMIFA), which is codified at New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL) §§ 550-558.⁵ Pursuant to N-PCL § 555, restrictions on management, investment or purpose contained in a gift instrument can be released or modified (a) by donor consent, (b) by a court, upon application of an institution, if the restriction has become impracticable or wasteful, if it impairs the management or investment of the fund or if, because of circumstances not anticipated by the donor, a modification of the restriction will further the purposes of the fund, and (c) if a particular purpose or restriction becomes unlawful, impracticable, impossible, or wasteful (see N-PCL § 555[a-c]). Section 555 embodies New York's statutory articulation of cy pres and deviation. Under the Act, when seeking court release, an institution must provide notice to the donor, in addition to the AG, and both the AG and donor have the opportunity to be heard (id.). It should be noted, there are very few cases addressing N-PCL § 555, leaving the language of the statute itself as the exclusive guide.⁶

In 2013, § 555 was amended to confirm that NYPMIFA does not limit the court's ability to apply common law equitable principles of cy pres and equitable deviation (see N-PCL § 555[f]).⁷ Before NYPMIFA was codified, New York courts relied solely on common law equitable doctrines and the EPTL § 8-1.1 trust rules to fix broken restrictions. By adding subsection (f), the legislature guaranteed that if a unique situation arises that does not perfectly fit the strict procedural boxes of subsections (a) — (d), the court still retains its full historic, flexible equitable powers to step in and modify a restriction. Thus, N-PCL § 555(f) is a saving clause.

 § 555 (b) or (c)

The first issue that needs to be addressed is which section of N-PCL § 555 is applicable to the case at bar. It is the opinion of this Court that § 555(c), the statutory version of cy pres, is triggered which reads as follows:

"If a particular purpose or a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the use of an institutional fund becomes unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful, the court, upon application of an institution, may modify the purpose of the fund or the restriction on the use of the fund in a manner consistent with the purposes expressed in the gift instrument. The institution shall notify the donor, if available, and the attorney general of the application, and the attorney general and such donor must be given an opportunity to be heard." (N-PCL § 555[c]) (emphasis added)

The Restricted Funds in this matter involve endowments that fund scholarships for students attending Cazenovia. When a college ceases operations entirely, fulfilling the donor's designated purpose of funding scholarships at that specific institution becomes legally impossible to achieve (emphasis added). In this situation, the Court may use its cy pres authority to modify the original purpose, allowing the assets to be transferred to a new surviving institution that closely approximates "as near as possible" the donor's intent. As such, the funds are redirected to ensure that the endowments continue to serve a meaningful charitable purpose in the future.

In contrast, § 555(b), the statutory version of deviation, applies strictly to the management or investment rules governing a fund. Section 555(b) states the following:

"A court, upon application of an institution, may modify a restriction contained in a gift instrument regarding the management or investment of an institutional fund if the restriction has become impracticable or wasteful, if it impairs the management or investment of the fund, or if, because of circumstances not anticipated by the donor, a modification of a restriction will further the purposes of the fund․" (N-PCL § 555[b]) (emphasis added).

Deviation allows a court to lift administrative or procedural limitations (such as an obsolete investment restriction or a mandate to hold a specific stock) if it impairs the fund's management. "Thus, equitable deviation may be appropriate where cy pres is not because an administrative change can be made without altering the purpose of the trust or changing its disposition provisions" (Matter of Chamberlin, 135 AD3d 1052, 1053 [3d Dept 2016]). As a college closure fundamentally breaks the charitable purpose rather than just investment mechanics, deviation is insufficient to authorize a wholesale transfer of the assets to a separate entity.

 Standing

The second issue relates to whether co-petitioner, Le Moyne, cross-petitioner, Kinne S. Yon, and remaining individual donor cross-petitioners have standing to intervene in this N-PCL § 555(c) special proceeding.

As it relates to Le Moyne, the donors contend that, as a proposed beneficiary of the Restricted Funds, Le Moyne lacks standing to appear as a co-petitioner in this matter. It is clear from a plain reading of the statute that only the institution holding the funds has standing to seek a release or modification of a restriction contained in a gift instrument (see N-PCL § 555[c]). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has held as follows:

"[t]he general rule is that one who is merely a possible beneficiary of a charitable trust, or a member of a class of possible beneficiaries, is not entitled to sue for enforcement of the trust ․ Instead, the Attorney-General has the statutory power and duty to represent the beneficiaries of any disposition for charitable purposes.

There is an exception to the general rule, however, when a particular group of people has a special interest in funds held for a charitable purpose, as when they are entitled to a preference in the distribution of such funds and the class of potential beneficiaries is sharply defined and limited in number." (Alco Gravure v Knapp Found., 64 NY2d 458, 465 [1985]).

After careful review of the facts and law, it is the opinion of this Court that Le Moyne is not entitled to be a co-petitioner in this matter. However, the Court finds that Le Moyne does have a unique, contractual relationship with Cazenovia that sets it apart from all other potential beneficiaries. Le Moyne is a Legacy Institution for Cazenovia and entered into a teach-out agreement to provide its students with the opportunity to transfer with full recognition of credits earned. Le Moyne and Cazenovia also entered into a Transfer of Endowment, Records Maintenance and Preservation of Legacy Agreement, pursuant to which Le Moyne agreed to provide services related to the maintenance of financial, human resources, and alumni records and data hosting services. Further Le Moyne has been previously approved to be the recipient of 112 other Restricted Funds from Cazenovia and agreed to utilize those funds in a manner consistent with the purpose of each such fund. Le Moyne is a sharply defined potential beneficiary and thus, in the opinion of this Court, falls under the exception to the general rule. Wherefore, Le Moyne shall have standing to appear in a limited capacity as an interested party, solely on the issue as to how it may be the most appropriate institution to utilize the Restricted Funds in a manner consistent with the intentions of the respective donors. (see Alco Gravure v Knapp Found., Alco Gravure v Knapp Found., 64 NY2d 458 [1985]; In re Trustco Bank (Lally), 33 Misc 3d 745 [Sur Ct, Schenectady County 2011]; Matter of Pofit, 67 Misc 3d 1237(A) [Sup Ct, Schenectady County 2020].

As it relates to Kinne S. Yon, Cazenovia contends that Ms. Yon is not a donor of the Katherine & Charles Sigety Scholarship Fund ("Sigety Fund") and therefore does not have standing under N-PCL § 555(c) to intervene in this special proceeding. It is the opinion of the Court that the record supports a finding that Ms. Yon is a donor for purposes of the statute.

N-PCL § 551 defines the terms utilized under N-PCL § 555 :

" 'Donor' means the person who grants or transfers property to an institution pursuant to a gift instrument, or a person designated in the applicable gift instrument to act in the place of the donor, but does not otherwise include the person's executors, heirs, successors, assigns, transferees or distributes." (N-PCL 551[a-1])(emphasis added).

" 'Gift Instrument' means a record or records, including an institutional solicitation, under which property is granted to, transferred to, or held by an institution as an institutional fund." (N-PCL § 551[d])(emphasis added).

Ms. Yon is the daughter of Katherine & Charles Sigety and the Administrator of their respective estates. A review of Cazenovia's institutional records for the Sigety Fund reveals that it was created on or about January of 1992, but the records do not contain a specific endowed scholarship agreement (see NYSCEF Doc. No.: 52). Pursuant to N-PCL § 551(d), a gift instrument includes all records under which property is granted to, transferred to, or held by an institution. The gift instrument in this case reveals that Ms. Yon signed an Endowed Scholarship Fund Confirmation Form and transferred $10,000.00 to Cazenovia on April 25, 2016, and Cazenovia accepted that transfer. That said, Ms. Yon would meet the definition of "Donor" as person designated in the gift instrument to act in the place of donor. Wherefore, it is the opinion of this Court that Kinne S. Yon does have standing as a donor in this special proceeding.

As it relates to the individual donors, Cazenovia contends that donors have no right to cross-petition under the statute. This Court does not agree with Cazenovia's restrictive position. The legislative history indicates that N-PCL § 555 was passed, in part, to strengthen the voice of the donor in order to prevent donee institutions from contravening the intent of the donor.⁸ Moreover, it is well settled in New York common law that the donor of a charitable gift has standing to sue the donee in order to enforce the terms of the gift. Smithers v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 281 AD2d 127, 128 and 140 (1st Dept 2001). It is the opinion of the Court that not only should the donors be heard, but their substantive position concerning donor intent and potential transfer of the Restricted Funds to an appropriate charitable beneficiary be taken into consideration. Case law places the sole duty on the Court to make the determination and affords it wide discretion in doing so, including in the interpretation of the donor's original intent and the Court's derivation of the purposes of the Fund. (see Application of Richmond Cnty. Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Child., 11 AD2d 236, 239 [2d Dept 1960]; Application of Colgate University, 193 Misc. 706 [Sup. Ct., Madison Co. 1948]). Wherefore, this Court concludes that individual donors have standing to interpose cross-petitions.

 Discretionary Clause

The third issue that needs to be addressed is whether the Cazenovia Board of Trustees ("Board") possesses absolute autonomy, over the objections of the donors, to redirect the subject Restricted Funds to Le Moyne pursuant to a discretionary clause contained in some of the gift instruments. The donors are recommending alternative successor institutions which they believe are a better match to their original intent. Six of the nine Restricted Funds have Endowment Scholarship Agreements which contain the following clause:

"Should the purpose(s) of the gift, as detailed herein, be or become indefinite, impossible, or impractical of fulfillment, the Board of Trustees of Cazenovia College shall direct the fund, in its discretion, as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the Donor" (emphasis added).9

Cazenovia contends that this clause, in conjunction with N-PCL § 555(c), vests it with sole and absolute discretion to select the successor entity. This Court declines to adopt such a rigid application.

While the clause vests the Board with the discretion to select a path forward upon the institution's closure, that power is bound by a strict fiduciary duty of obedience to the intentions of the donor. In the landmark case, Allegheny College v National Chautauqua County Bank, Chief Justice Cardozo ruled that the moment a college accepted money as part of a memorial gift there is an assumption of a duty to do whatever acts were reasonably necessary to maintain a memorial fairly and justly in the spirit of its creation. A college cannot accept the money and hold itself free thereafter from personal responsibility to give effect to the donor's intent (246 NY 369 [1927]). Indeed, as stated previously, N-PCL § 555 was enacted, in part, to strengthen the voice of the donor in order to prevent institutions from contravening their intent. Thus, although the clause vests Cazenovia with discretion to nominate a successor entity, it does not strip this Court of its equitable oversight, nor silence the AG's office. While central to the Court's inquiry, the discretionary clause does not operate as the sole dispositive factor overriding a comprehensive analysis of which institution best fulfills the donor's intent "as near as possible" while also considering factors such as geographic location, institutional mission proximity and fiscal stability of a proposed institution.

That said, this Court must evaluate the competing proposals and determine which institution engages in activities substantially similar to those of Cazenovia and will use the funds in a manner consistent with the donor's intent.

1. The Barbara C. Wheler Endowed Scholarship Fund

Bradford G. Wheler is the original donor of the Barbara C. Wheler Fund, which was created in March of 2001 and is presently valued at approximately $115,000.00. Mr. Wheler originally created the Fund with the intent to honor his mother, Barbara C. Wheler (hereinafter "Ms. Wheler"), and, specifically, her dedication to community and public service in Madison County. For example, Ms. Wheler, who was a trained nurse, volunteered for twenty years in that capacity at the Madison County Children's Camp, was an avid supporter of CazCares, the Cazenovia Food Bank, and volunteered a significant amount of time serving Cazenovia College. She also spent fifteen years on the Board of Trustees of the Community Memorial Hospital ("CMH") in Madison County, nine years on the Board for the Community Memorial Hospital Foundation ("CMH Foundation"), and ten years on the Board of Trustees of Crouse Community Center in Madison County. As set forth in the Scholarship Agreement, the "annual scholarship would be awarded to a Cazenovia College junior year female student in recognition of her contribution to community and public service" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52 at #11). Mr. Wheler objects to petitioners' proposed transfer to Le Moyne College because it is both outside of Madison County and not an organization that his mother was affiliated with, which is inconsistent with his original intent. As such, he respectfully requests that the Wheler Fund be transferred to the CMH Foundation according to the terms of a new, conditional gift instrument, titled the BARBARA C. WHELER ENDOWMENT FUND, which would benefit an underserved community need in Madison County by furthering the education and training of nurses at CMH. Since Ms. Wheler was a nurse, who used her nursing skills and medical background frequently during her public and community service within Madison County, the transfer to the Foundation to support the education and training of nurses would appropriately honor her public service.

Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne is a suitable recipient of this Restricted Fund and notes that the funds will continue to benefit college students pursuing a four-year degree at a Central New York liberal arts college. Petitioners submit that Mr. Wheler is proposing a new purpose for the Restricted Fund that is not consistent with its original stated intent and purpose. Le Moyne understands that Mr. Wheler has indicated that his original gift was motivated by a desire to benefit and promote community service within Madison County. Le Moyne is willing to implement a preference for the funds to be awarded to a female student in her junior year who graduated from a high school in Madison County or who otherwise resides in Madison County. Cazenovia also notes that the Scholarship Agreement contains a discretionary clause.

After considering the evidence and relevant factors to determining the donor's charitable intent, the Court concludes that the fund should be transferred to the CMH Foundation for the education and training of nurses. The record establishes that Mr. Wheler created the scholarship to honor the life and public service of his mother, whose more than sixty-five years of service were devoted to the residents of Madison County, particularly underserved members of the community. The Scholarship Agreement expressly states that the fund was established to recognize her many achievements in community and public service, rather than to advance the interests of Cazenovia as an educational institution. The evidence further demonstrates that Ms. Wheler maintained significant and longstanding ties to the Community Memorial Hospital ("CMH") Foundation, having served for fifteen years on the Community Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees and for an additional nine years on the CMH Foundation Board, both of which are located in Madison County. The Court also notes that the CMH Foundation is a tax-exempt charitable organization organized pursuant to the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law and possesses the financial stability and administrative experience necessary to manage restricted charitable funds. Although the Scholarship Agreement contains a discretionary provision authorizing the selection of an alternative recipient, that discretion must be exercised in a manner that most nearly fulfills the donor's intent. The Court finds that transferring the fund to Le Moyne would not adequately effectuate that intent. Unlike the CMH Foundation, Le Moyne has no meaningful connection to either Ms. Wheler's legacy of public service or Madison County, the community that formed the focus of her life's work. By contrast, transferring the fund to the CMH Foundation ensures that the endowment remains within Madison County and continues to advance educational opportunities through the training and development of nursing professionals; a purpose that closely aligns with both Ms. Wheler's lifelong commitment to community health and the donor's stated intent in creating the scholarship. Accordingly, the Court concludes that transferring the fund to the CMH Foundation most nearly effectuates the donor's charitable intent, and the application to transfer the fund to the CMH Foundation is granted.

2. Joanne G. Blumin '63 Scholarship

Marlene Blumin, Ph.D. is the original donor of the Joanne G. Blumin '63 Scholarship Fund, which was created in May of 2013, and is presently valued at approximately $52,000.00. Dr. Blumin originally created the Scholarship Fund in memory of her deceased sister, Joanne G. Blumin, who graduated from Cazenovia College in 1963. The purpose of the Fund was to provide financial assistance to Cazenovia junior and senior students who maintained a minimum 3.0 grade point average and demonstrated financial need. Dr. Blumin also created a similar scholarship, The Joanne G. Blumin '66 Endowed Scholarship Fund, at Syracuse University in memory of her sister who graduated from the University in 1966. Dr. Blumin indicates that her sister has no connection with Le Moyne and requests that the funds for the Joanne Blumin '63 Scholarship Fund be transferred to Syracuse University so that they may be included with the Joanne Blumin '66 Endowed Scholarship Fund. In addition, Dr. Blumin provided e-mail correspondence dated October 6, 2023, from Cazenovia's President, David G. Bergh, wherein he stated, "[w]e have indicated that we will not be objecting to any of these requests" regarding the transfer of Fund to Syracuse University (see NYSCEF Doc No.: 126).

Cazenovia asserts that Le Moyne is a suitable recipient of this Restricted Fund, and notes that the funds will continue to benefit college students pursuing a four-year degree at a Central New York liberal arts college, as was the intention at the time of the gift.

After considering both the language of the governing instrument and the extrinsic evidence bearing on the donor's charitable intent, the Court concludes that transferring the fund to Le Moyne would not effectuate the purpose of the gift. The evidence establishes that the donor created the scholarship to honor the memory of her sister, Joanne G. Blumin, by providing financial assistance to students at institutions with which Joanne had a meaningful personal connection. The Court finds this intent to be evidenced not only by the scholarship established at Cazenovia, where Joanne was an alumna, but also by the donor's prior establishment of a substantially similar scholarship at Syracuse University for the same commemorative purpose. The creation of scholarships at both institutions Joanne attended demonstrates that the donor regarded her sister's educational affiliations as an essential component of her charitable intent, rather than an incidental circumstance. Le Moyne College has no comparable connection to Joanne G. Blumin. Accordingly, transferring the fund to Le Moyne would fail to preserve the central purpose of the gift. By contrast, transferring the fund to Syracuse University, where it will be combined with the existing Joanne G. Blumin Class of 1966 Scholarship, most nearly effectuates the donor's original charitable intent by continuing to honor Joanne's educational legacy through an institution with which she was personally affiliated. The application to transfer the fund to Syracuse University is therefore granted.

3. Mac E. Cadaret Endowed Scholarship

Christine Cadaret Wieczorek ("Mrs. Cadaret") is the original donor of the Mac E. Cadaret Endowed Scholarship ("Cadaret Fund"), which was created in January of 2000, and is presently valued at approximately $41,000.00. The Cadaret Fund was created with the intent to honor the legacy of Mrs. Cadaret's deceased husband, Mac E. Cadaret's ("Mr. Cadaret") love of horses. Mrs. Cadaret indicated that she did not select Cazenovia because it was an institution for higher education. Cazenovia was selected as the recipient of the donation as Mr. Cadaret was a member of the Cazenovia Equine Advisory Committee and had donated a horse to Cazenovia. During his lifetime, Mr. Cadaret owned and operated a large horse farm, Sanctuary Stables, located in Cazenovia, New York. Following Mr. Cadaret's death, Sanctuary Stables was sold to Haven at Skanda, Inc. ("The Haven"), which is a non-profit animal sanctuary and education center which rescues and cares for horses.

As the donor, Mrs. Cadaret objects to the proposed transfer of the Fund to Le Moyne as being inconsistent with her original purpose and intent. Mr. Cadaret did not have any personal connection with Le Moyne. More importantly though, Le Moyne does not have an Equine Program nor offer any degrees related to equine studies equivalent to Cazenovia. Mrs. Cadaret requests that the Court transfer the Fund to the Haven, a tax-exempt corporation that can allegedly manage and administer the Fund to honor her late husband's love for horses.

Cazenovia contends that although Le Moyne does not offer a degree in equine studies, it does maintain an equestrian club sport team. Le Moyne would be able to direct monies to support the club team and/or identify students that are active participants on the team as potential scholarship recipients. Le Moyne also notes that the Haven is not a degree-granting institution of higher education nor engaged in a formal Equine Studies program. As such, Le Moyne submits that the donor proposes a new purpose for the Fund that is inconsistent with its original stated intent and purpose.

After considering the governing instrument and the evidence presented regarding the donor's charitable intent, the Court concludes that transferring the Cadaret Fund to Le Moyne most nearly fulfills the original purpose of the endowment. The record establishes that the scholarship was created in memory of Mr. Cadaret and was inspired by his lifelong love of horses. While that interest motivated the creation of the fund, the donor elected to establish the scholarship at Cazenovia, a degree-granting institution of higher education. The Court therefore finds that the educational nature of the gift was a material component of the donor's intent. Le Moyne, like Cazenovia, is an institution of higher education serving college students and is located in close geographic proximity to Cazenovia. Although Le Moyne does not offer an Equine Studies program, the record does not demonstrate that the donor intended the scholarship to be limited exclusively to students enrolled in such a program. By contrast, the Haven is not a degree-granting educational institution and, therefore, would not preserve the educational character of the original gift. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that transferring the fund to Le Moyne most nearly effectuates the donor's charitable intent. Accordingly, the application to transfer the Cadaret Fund to Le Moyne is granted.

4. The Katherine & Charles Sigety Scholarship

Charles and Katherine Sigety, both deceased, were the original donors of the Sigety Scholarship Fund ("Sigety Fund"), created on or about January of 1992, and is presently valued at approximately $50,000.00. The underlying purpose of Sigety Fund was to promote Cazenovia's equine studies program by providing financial support to equine students. Cross-petitioner, Kinne S. Yon, is the daughter of and administrator for the Estates of Katherine and Charles Sigety and was also directly involved in furthering the scholarship in 2016. Cross-petitioner objects to the transfer of the Sigety Fund to Le Moyne because they do not have an equine studies program. Ms. Yon requests that the Sigety Fund be transferred to Skidmore College, which has a prominent equestrian program, is a liberal arts college and not-for-profit institution located in Upstate New York.

Although Le Moyne does not offer a degree in equine studies, Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne is suitable recipient of the Sigety Fund. As previously stated, Le Moyne asserts that it would be able to direct monies to support the Equestrian club team and/or identify students that are active participants on the team as potential scholarship recipients. Thus, utilizing the Sigety Fund in a manner consistent with the original stated purpose and intent.

After considering the governing instrument and the evidence presented regarding the donor's charitable intent, the Court concludes that transferring the Sigety Fund to Skidmore College most nearly effectuates the original purpose of the endowment. The record establishes that the donor intended the scholarship to benefit students pursuing a degree in equine studies. Unlike Cazenovia, Le Moyne does not offer an equine studies degree or a comparable academic program. As a result, transferring the fund to Le Moyne would not preserve the specific educational purpose for which the scholarship was created. The Court further notes that the Endowment Agreement contains no discretionary provision authorizing the redirection of the fund to an institution unable to carry out the donor's stated purpose. By contrast, Ms. Yon has identified Skidmore College, a financially stable institution of higher education in upstate New York that offers a comparable equine studies program and is capable of administering the scholarship in accordance with the donor's original intent. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that transferring the Sigety Fund to Skidmore College most faithfully preserves the donor's charitable purpose. Accordingly, the application to transfer the Sigety Fund to Skidmore College is granted.

5. The Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund

Albert J. Budney and Rev. Karen V. Budney ("Budneys") are the original donors of the Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund ("Budney Fund"), which was established in November of 2010, and is presently valued at approximately $120,000.00. The original purpose of the fund was to provide financial assistance (up to 5% of the market value of the fund) to Cazenovia students who have demonstrated financial need, strong academic achievement and successfully completed their freshman year. The Budneys object to Cazenovia's proposed transfer of the entire Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne, because they do not have any connections with Le Moyne. It is their strong desire that the Budney Fund be transferred to The Helen Keaton Vickers Scholarship, which they previously established at West Chester University ("West Chester"). The Budneys have extensive ties to West Chester as many family members attended West Chester, including Karen Budney's mother. The scholarship has the identical intent and purpose as their scholarship fund at Cazenovia. In addition, the Budneys provided e-mail correspondence dated July 6, 2023, from Cazenovia's President, David G. Bergh, wherein he stated, "[w]e do not intend to raise any objections to your recommendation" regarding the scholarship fund (see NYSCEF Doc No.: 74). Finally, in an effort to reach a compromise, the Budneys indicate that they would be willing to send 1/3 of the Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne and 2/3 to West Chester.

Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne is able to administer this Fund and fulfill its stated purpose. As a comprehensive institution of higher learning, Le Moyne argues that it successfully matriculates hundreds of students each year and would be able to identify students demonstrating both financial need and strong academic and leadership qualities. Moreover, Cazenovia points out that pursuant to the specific terms of the Endowed Scholarship Agreement executed by Albert Budney, the donor agreed that in the event the purpose of the gift were to become impossible or impractical of fulfillment, the Cazenovia College Board of Trustees would have authority to direct the fund, in its discretion, as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the donor.

After reviewing the governing instrument and the evidence presented, the Court concludes that transferring the Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne most nearly effectuates the donor's charitable intent. The Scholarship Agreement establishes that the primary purpose of the gift was to provide financial assistance to college students who, following their freshman year, demonstrated strong academic achievement and leadership potential. Although Cazenovia was designated as the administering institution, its closure has rendered that aspect of the gift impossible to fulfill. The Court finds no evidence in the governing instrument or the surrounding circumstances indicating that the donor's selection of Cazenovia was itself a material component of the charitable purpose or that the donor intended the scholarship to remain exclusively associated with that institution. Le Moyne is a comparable institution of higher education located in close geographic proximity to Cazenovia and serves a similar student population through substantially similar academic and extracurricular opportunities. Accordingly, the transfer to Le Moyne preserves both the intended class of beneficiaries and the educational purpose of the original gift. The Court has considered the Budneys' request that the scholarship instead be transferred to West Chester. However, the record demonstrates that this request is based upon the donors' present personal connection to that institution rather than upon evidence of the charitable intent expressed when the scholarship was created. While the Court recognizes the sincerity of that preference, it does not find that connection to be a material factor in determining the purpose of the original donation. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that transferring the Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne most faithfully preserves the donor's original charitable intent. Accordingly, the application to transfer the scholarship fund to Le Moyne is granted.

6. The Kathleen Bice Scholarship Fund

Kathleen Bice is the original donor of the Kathleen Bice Scholarship Fund ("Bice Scholarship Fund"), which was established in June of 2011, and presently valued at approximately $90,000.00. The original purpose of the scholarship was to provide financial assistance to junior or senior Cazenovia students who demonstrate financial need, who are majoring in Human Services and maintaining a 3.0 grade point average. Preference was given to students studying domestic violence, or an aspect of health care, in addition to those who possess an excellent work ethic, have demonstrated the ability to overcome challenges and whose character reflects kindness/generosity together with leadership potential. Ms. Bice objects to the transfer of the Bice Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne as she has no relationship with the college. Ms. Bice requests that the Bice Scholarship Fund be transferred to her alma mater, the University of Southern California ("USC"), where she previously endowed another scholarship for students who are studying Physical Therapy ("PT"). As an alumna of USC with a degree in PT, Ms. Bice has a greater interest in supporting USC and its PT program. She has a decades long relationship with USC which includes being an Adjunct Faculty member with the PT program and later acting as the Assistant-Chairperson for the program.

Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne can administer the Bice Scholarship Fund and fulfill its stated purpose. LeMoyne says it can implement a preference for students focused on studying Human Services with additional preference given to students who are studying domestic violence or an aspect of health care. By contrast, Le Moyne submits that Ms. Bice proposes a new purpose for the Restricted Funds that is not consistent with its original stated intent and purpose. However, to the extent relevant, Le Moyne does offer a direct-entry degree program in a Doctor of Physical Therapy ("DPT") degree with formal agreements with the University of Scranton and with SUNY Upstate Medical University. Moreover, Cazenovia points out that pursuant to the specific terms of the Endowed Scholarship Agreement executed by Ms. Bice, she agreed that in the event the purpose of the gift were to become impossible or impractical of fulfillment, the Cazenovia College Board of Trustees would have authority to direct the fund, in its discretion, as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the donor.

After reviewing the governing instrument and the evidence presented, the Court concludes that transferring the Bice Fund to Le Moyne most nearly effectuates the donor's original charitable intent. The Scholarship Agreement establishes that the fund was created to provide financial assistance to students demonstrating financial need who are pursuing human service-related fields of study, maintain a minimum 3.0 grade point average, and satisfy the donor's stated preferences, including an interest in domestic violence studies and a demonstrated strong work ethic. The Court finds that Le Moyne is capable of administering the scholarship in a manner that preserves the substantive eligibility criteria. By contrast, the donor's present request to transfer the fund to USC would materially alter the original administration of the scholarship by redirecting it to an institution selected based upon circumstances arising after the gift was created, rather than those reflected in the original Scholarship Agreement. The Court further notes that Le Moyne is a comparable institution of higher education located in close geographic proximity to Cazenovia and serves a similar student population through comparable academic programs and extracurricular opportunities. Additionally, the Endowed Scholarship Agreement executed by Ms. Bice in 2011 expressly authorizes the Cazenovia College Board of Trustees to direct the fund in a manner that most nearly fulfills the donor's intentions should the original administration of the scholarship become impracticable. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that transferring the Bice Fund to Le Moyne best preserves the donor's original charitable purpose while remaining consistent with the discretionary authority set forth in the governing instrument. Accordingly, the application to transfer the Bice Fund to Le Moyne is granted.

7. The Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship

Barbara Sedam is the original donor of the Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship Fund ("Sedam Scholarship Fund"), which was established in January of 1996, and is presently valued at approximately $58,000.00. The original purpose of the scholarship fund was to provide financial assistance (up to 10% of the principal amount) to worthy and deserving Cazenovia students. Ms. Sedam objects to the transfer of the Sedam Scholarship Fund to Le Moyne because she has no relationship with the college. Ms. Sedam requests the Court to transfer the Sedam Scholarship Fund to Colgate University, where its purpose and intent can be preserved and carried out in alignment with the original gift parameters. Ms. Sedam is confident that Colgate University is fully capable of stewarding this fund responsibly and keeping with the spirit in which it was originally established.

Cazenovia asserts that Le Moyne can administer the Sedam Scholarship Fund and fulfill its stated purpose. As a comprehensive institution of higher learning, Le Moyne contends that it can identify "worthy and deserving students" who would be appropriate recipients of this award. Petitioner argues that Le Moyne is similar to Cazenovia, and the Restricted Funds would continue to benefit college students pursuing a four-year degree at a liberal arts school located in Central New York.

The Court finds that transferring the Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship Fund to Colgate University preserves the original purpose and intent of the restricted endowment. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sedam does not seek to alter the scholarship's purpose or eligibility criteria; rather, she seeks only to designate Colgate University as the institution responsible for administering the endowment following the closure of Cazenovia. While the Court recognizes that either Le Moyne or Colgate University could administer the scholarship in a manner consistent with its original charitable purpose, the Court affords significant weight to Ms. Sedam's expressed preference for Colgate University, particularly in light of her existing relationship with another endowment established in memory of her late husband. The Court further notes that Colgate University shares educational values comparable to those of Cazenovia and is located within the same county. Additionally, the Notice of Intent executed by Ms. Sedam in 1996 contains no discretionary provision authorizing the transfer of the fund without regard to the donor's expressed wishes. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the requested transfer preserves the donor's original charitable intent while respecting her present designation of the administering institution. Accordingly, the application to transfer the Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship Fund to Colgate University is granted.

8. The Lynn Reynolds '04 Education Scholarship

Patti Sheldon (Reynolds) is the original donor of the Lynn Reynolds '04 Education Scholarship fund, which was established in September of 2009, and is presently valued at approximately $43,000.00. The endowment was created to honor the memory of Patti Sheldon's daughter, Lynn Reynolds. Lynn studied for four years at Cazenovia (2000-2004). Cazenovia prepared her for further work on her master's degree in education at Nazareth University. Sadly, she was diagnosed with cancer in her first semester at Nazareth. After two years of surgeries, chemo, and radiation, Lynn passed away in 2006. Persons eligible for the scholarship award were students in their junior or senior year at Cazenovia, who had demonstrated successful academic performance with a minimum G.P.A. of 3.0, who are enrolled in the Elementary Education or Inclusive Education Program at Cazenovia College and who demonstrate a passion for teaching young children that would honor Lynn's memory.

Ms. Sheldon objects to the transfer of the Scholarship to Le Moyne, because Lynn had no relationship with the college. Ms. Sheldon is requesting that the funds be transferred in their entirety to Nazareth University. She maintains that the college is in Lynn's community; the family has close ties with the professors and Ms. Sheldon also received her master's degree from Nazareth. Ms. Sheldon contends that it would be a meaningful connection and heartwarming to have students in Lynn's community benefit from her scholarship.

Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne is a suitable recipient of this Restricted Fund, and notes that the funds will continue to benefit college students pursuing a four-year degree in education at a Central New York liberal arts college, as was the intention at the time of the gift. They also assert that Le Moyne has been specifically designated by Cazenovia as the institution charged with preserving its legacy.

The Court finds that the Lynn Reynolds Endowed Scholarship should be transferred to Nazareth University. The evidence establishes that Ms. Sheldon created the scholarship to honor the memory and educational accomplishments of her late daughter, Lynn Reynolds. Lynn earned her undergraduate degree from Cazenovia and subsequently pursued graduate studies at Nazareth University. The record shows that neither Lynn Reynolds nor Ms. Sheldon has any affiliation with Le Moyne. Although both Le Moyne and Nazareth University offer programs in Inclusive Elementary Education that could administer the scholarship in a manner consistent with its educational purpose, Nazareth University bears a direct and unique connection to the individual whom the scholarship was established to commemorate. The Court further notes that the Cazenovia Endowed Scholarship Agreement, executed by Ms. Sheldon, provides that the Board of Trustees shall direct the fund "as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the donor." This language reflects a discretionary standard analogous to the principles underlying the doctrine of cy pres, requiring the Court to identify the alternative that most closely effectuates the donor's charitable intent. Here, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sheldon's primary intention was not merely to support students pursuing Inclusive Elementary Education, but to memorialize her daughter's educational journey. Because Nazareth University was the institution where Lynn Reynolds continued her academic career, transferring the scholarship to Nazareth University most faithfully preserves the donor's intent. Accordingly, the Court grants the application to transfer the Lynn Reynolds Endowed Scholarship to Nazareth University.

9. The Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship Fund

Marjorie Dobin Miller ("Ms. Miller") is the original donor of the Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship fund, which was established in October of 2014, and is presently valued at approximately $25,000.00. The Scholarship was created for the purpose of providing financial assistance to Cazenovia College students. Specifically, the scholarship was intended to provide financial assistance to students in good academic standing, with a preference to high school graduates from Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Ms. Miller objects to the transfer of the Scholarship to Le Moyne, because she had donated the money to a private-secular college. It was never her intent to have the Restricted Funds be sent to Le Moyne, a Roman Catholic (Jesuit) college. Ms. Miller contends that the Fund should not be directed to a faith-based college unless it is her own choosing. That said, she is requesting that the monies be directed to the Jewish Theological Seminary located at 3080 Broadway, New York, New York, 10027.

Cazenovia contends that Le Moyne is able to administer this Restricted Fund and fulfill its stated purpose. Le Moyne maintains that it regularly admits many students from Nassau County each year and is therefore able to identify students in good academic standing who are graduates of high school(s) located in Nassau County. Le Moyne contends that it is certainly sensitive to issues related to faith but notes that Cazenovia was originally founded as a Seminary. While Le Moyne is a school in the Jesuit academic tradition, it does not require that students or employees adhere to Catholicism. In fact, Le Moyne has had a long history of engagement with Jewish students and alumni, and it provides courses in Judaism. Current regulations or practices do not allow Le Moyne to ask students about their faith, but they do have students from Israel currently enrolled at Le Moyne and also have Jewish members of our Board of Trustees. Le Moyne respectfully submits that the donor proposes a new purpose for the Restricted Fund that is not consistent with its original stated intent and purpose. Moreover, Cazenovia points out that pursuant to the specific terms of the Endowed Scholarship Agreement executed by the Ms. Miller, she agreed that in the event the purpose of the gift were to become impossible or impractical of fulfillment, the Cazenovia College Board of Trustees would have authority to direct the fund, in its discretion, as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the donor.

The original endowment agreement governing the Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship Fund at Cazenovia College explicitly establishes its primary purpose: providing financial assistance to students matriculating at Cazenovia, with a stated preference for high school graduates residing in Nassau County. Extrinsic evidence regarding the donor's intent consists solely of the direct objections submitted by the original donor. Ms. Miller affirms that her philanthropic intent never encompassed supporting Le Moyne. Consequently, the donor proposes an alternative disposition, requesting that the original corpus be redirected to The Jewish Theological Seminary.

After considering the relevant factors, the Court concludes that Le Moyne most nearly fulfills the purpose of the original endowment. The evidence establishes that the donor intended the gift to provide financial assistance to college students from Nassau County. That purpose will continue to be served through administration of the endowment by Le Moyne, an institution of higher education comparable to Cazenovia. Accordingly, both the class of intended beneficiaries and the educational purpose of the gift remain substantially unchanged. The Court further notes that the governing instrument contains no provision expressing a preference for a particular successor institution in the event that Cazenovia ceased to exist or became unable to administer the endowment. However, the Endowed Scholarship Agreement, executed by Ms. Sheldon, does contain a discretionary clause granting the Cazenovia College Board of Trustees the authority to direct the fund, in its discretion, as it most nearly fulfills the intentions of the donor. Although the donor now objects to the transfer of the fund to Le Moyne, the record contains no evidence demonstrating that Le Moyne is unable to carry out the charitable purpose of the gift apart from the fact that it is not Cazenovia. The Court also notes that Le Moyne is a comparable institution of higher education located in close geographic proximity to Cazenovia. The donor contends that she did not intend for the endowment to be administered by a secular institution. The Court finds that the record does not support the conclusion that the religious affiliation of a successor institution was a material component of the donor's charitable intent. The governing instrument contains no restriction requiring that the scholarship be administered by either a sectarian or nonsectarian institution. Moreover, the donor's proposed alternative is itself affiliated with a religious institution, demonstrating that the decisive consideration is not the religious character of the institution but whether it can faithfully carry out the donor's charitable purpose. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Le Moyne most nearly effectuates the donor's original charitable intent, and the transfer of the endowment to Le Moyne is therefore granted.

NOW, upon the reading of the Verified Petition Concerning Additional Restricted Funds, with attached exhibits 1-14, verified by David Bergh, as President of Cazenovia College, on August 19, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 39-53); Verified Answer and Cross-Petition of Bradford G. Wheler, as the donor of the "Barbara C. Wheler Endowed Scholarship Fund", with attached exhibits A-I, verified on September 30, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 61-70), Affirmation of Bradford G. Wheler in support of the Answer and Cross-Petition, affirmed on September 29, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 71); Affirmation of Robert Tenney in support of the Answer and Cross-Petition, affirmed on September 29, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 72); Verified Answer and Cross-Petition of Marlene Blumin, Ph.D., as donor of the "Joanne G. Blumin '63 Endowed Scholarship Fund", with attached exhibits, verified on September 30, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 73); Pro se Objection and Request for alternate charitable beneficiary of Albert J. Budney and Rev. Karen V. Budney, as donors of "The Albert J. & Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund" (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 74); Pro se Objection and Cross-Petition of Marjorie Dobin Miller as donor of "The Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship Fund" sworn to on August 27, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 75); Pro se Objection and Request for alternate charitable beneficiary of Kathleen Bice as donor of "The Kathleen Bice Scholarship Fund" filed on September 24, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 75); Pro se Objection and Request for alternate charitable beneficiary of Patti Sheldon (Reynolds), with attached exhibits, as donor of "The Lynn Reynolds '04 Education Scholarship" dated August 25, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 75-78); Pro se Objection and Request for alternate charitable beneficiary of Barbara Sedam, as donor of "Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship" dated October 3, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 79 and 115); Co-Petitioner Le Moyne College's Reply to Answer and Cross-Petition of Bradford G. Wheler verified by Joseph E. Grasso, as Vice President of Finance and Administration, Treasurer and CFO of Le Moyne College, on October 17, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 84); Co-Petitioner Le Moyne College's Reply to Answer and Cross-Petition of Marlene Blumin, Ph.D., verified by Joseph E. Grasso, as Vice President of Finance and Administration, Treasurer and CFO of Le Moyne College, on October 17, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 85); Affirmation of Joseph E. Grasso, with attached exhibits "A" and "B", in support of Cazenovia's Petition and in opposition all cross-petitions and objections sworn to on October 17, 2025(NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 86-88); Verified Answer and Cross-Petition of Kinne S. Yon, as the representative of the Estate of Katherine Sigety, deceased, as donor of the "Katherine & Charles Sigety Scholarship", with attached exhibits A-D, verified on October 26, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 106); Attorney Affirmation of Frank Patyi, Esq., in opposition to the Kinne S. Yon Answer and Cross-Petition, affirmed on October 31, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 110); Reply Affirmation of John G. Power, Esq., in further support of the Wheler Cross-Petition with attached exhibits "A" and "B", affirmed on October 31, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 111-113); Supplemental Affidavit of Marlene Blumin, Ph.D., in further support of her Cross-Petition, sworn to on October 31, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 119); Office of the New York State Attorney General's position with regard to the pending Petition of Cazenovia College and all related Cross-Petitions, dated November 7, 2025(NYSCEF Doc. No.: 120); Verified Answer and Cross-Petition of Christine Cadaret Wieczorek, as donor of the "Mac E. Cadaret Endowed Scholarship Fund", with attached exhibits "A-D", sworn to on November 10, 2025(NYSCEF Doc. No.: 123); Affirmation of Christine Cadaret Wieczorek in support of her Answer and Cross-Petition, sworn to on November 10, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 124); correspondence from John A. Cirando, Esq., with attached e-mail communications between Marlene F. Blumin and David G. Bergh (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 126); Affirmation of Kinne S. Yon in further support of cross-petition, with attached exhibits "A-D", sworn to November 20, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos.: 130-134); Office of the New York State Attorney General's position with regard to all the "pro se" donors objections and requests, dated November 26, 2025(NYSCEF Doc. No.: 120); and after hearing oral argument on October 2, 2025 and November 14, 2025; and upon due deliberation, it is hereby

ORDERED that The Barbara C. Wheler Endowed Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to the Community Memorial Hospital Foundation; and it is further

ORDERED that Joanne G. Blumin '63 Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Syracuse University to be combined with the Joanne G. Blumin scholarship '66 Scholarship; and it is further

ORDERED that Mac E. Cadaret Endowed Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Le Moyne College; and it is further

ORDERED that the Katherine & Charles Sigety Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Skidmore College; and it is further

ORDERED that the Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Le Moyne College; and it is further

ORDERED that the Kathleen Bice Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Le Moyne College; and it is further

ORDERED that the Barbara Sayford Sedam Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Colgate University; and it is further

ORDERED that the Lynn Reynolds 04' Education Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Nazareth University; and it is further

ORDERED that the Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship Fund shall be transferred to Le Moyne College; and it is further

ORDERED that each recipient institution shall utilize said funds consistent with the donors' intent.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cazenovia College also filed a separate Petition regarding the sale of its campus assets, which was approved by this Court on October 21, 2025 (see In the Matter of the Approval to Sell and Dispose of the Assets of Cazenovia College, EF2025-1958 at NYSCEF Doc. No.: 35).

2.   A list of the 12 Restricted Funds for which donors expressed an objection can be found at NYSCEF Doc. No. 40.

3.   On November 20, 2025, this Court issued a separate Order, without objection, granting the relief sought by Petitioners transferring the three (3) Restricted Funds (a) The Margaret Stafford Scholarship, (b) the smART fund, and (c) the Martha Papworth O'Neil Class of 2000 Memorial Scholarship to Le Moyne, because no objection was received by the Court (NYSCEF Doc. No. 129).

4.    Professional Tax & Estate Planning Notes, NY Cmty. Trust, June 2013, pp. 2-3.

5.   The law repealed N-PCL § 522 and enacted a new provision, N-PCL § 555, governing both modification and release of donor restrictions on funds.

6.   Indeed, most of the cases relied upon by the parties predate the enactment of the NYPMIFA or involve concepts borrowed from EPTL § 8-1.1(c) or common law equity principles.

7.   The amendment explicitly ensures that the enactment of NYPMIFA does not replace, override, or limit a court's inherent, traditional common law authority to apply cy pres and equitable deviation

8.    See Harvey P. Dale, et al., Evolution, Not Revolution: A Legislative History of the New York Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, 17 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 377, 442 (2014) ("Regulators at the Charities Bureau were concerned that this provision [old N-PCL § 522] might override donor intent, and suggested that NYPMIFA require institutions to give notice and an opportunity to be heard to an available donor prior to any release or modification."; see also Memorandum of Support dated June 29, 2010, Legislative History of the NYPMIFA (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 112).

9.   The Barbara C. Wheler Endowed Scholarship Fund, Joanne G. Blumin '63 Endowed Scholarship Fund, Albert J. and Rev. Karen V. Budney Scholarship Fund, Kathleen Bice Scholarship Fund, Lynn Reynolds '04 Education Scholarship, and the Marjorie Dobin Miller '69 Scholarship Fund.

Patrick J. O'Sullivan, J.