Fund-raising at the Barnes Foundation can continue, despite the protest of a neighbor of the art museum who complained that the will of the late Albert Barnes explicitly banned such events.

A three-judge panel of state Superior Court has upheld a Montgomery County Court ruling that threw out a petition by Robert Marmon, who lives across the street from the world-famous museum in Lower Merion Township. The museum's celebrated collection includes early French modern and post-impressionist paintings, including masterpieces by Renoir, Cezanne, and Matisse.

The panel agreed last week with the lower court that Marmon did not have standing to make his challenge. Marmon has contended, however, that he does have standing because the functions bring noise and traffic congestion to his Main Line neighborhood.

Marmon is one of a number of neighbors who have fought the Barnes over zoning and other issues since the mid-1990s. He has complained that fund-raisers held at the Barnes in August and October of 2000 violated a section of Albert Barnes' will that outlined the purpose of the foundation: to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts for all people.

"At no time after [the death of Barnes] shall there be held in any building or buildings any society functions, commonly designated receptions, tea parties, dinners, banquets, musicales or similar affairs," the will states. Barnes was a physician, scientist and self-made millionaire who began collecting art in the 1920s.

In 1996, the Superior Court gave the Barnes the right to hold affairs that would benefit the institution, which has had financial difficulties in recent years.

Marmon, who represented himself in the case, first appealed to the state Attorney General's office, which is responsible for overseeing charitable foundations and institutions. Pennsylvania law generally prohibits individuals from bringing complaints against such institutions.

When the office declined to get involved, Marmon sought relief in Montgomery County Court.

That court, though, accepted the argument from Barnes' lawyers that the case should be thrown out because Marmon had no legal right to make his claim. Marmon appealed to Superior Court, saying that he did have standing because, living so close to the foundation, he was affected by noise and traffic congestion that resulted from the Barnes' functions.

The panel rejected that argument.