NY Court Dismisses Law Student’s Attempt to Challenge Legal Writing Grade, Finding No Implied Contract
Over at Adjunct Prof Blog, Mitchell H. Rubinstein reports onKeefe v. New York Law School, ___Misc. 3d___(N.Y. Co. Nov. 17, 2009), whichdismissed a student’s claim that New York Law School breached an impliedcontract by giving him a “C” in Legal Writing. Here’s Rubinstein’s summary:
A transfer student to New York Law School from Hofstra LawSchool was unhappy with being placed in Legal Writing II. As I understand it, hisargument was that New York Law School breached an implied contract because itdid not provide him with “the right program for every student” as indicatedon the law school’s web site. Out of the blue he argued that legal writingshould be graded pass/fail because that is the way it is done at Yale LawSchool. The court did not have any trouble dismissing the case and finding thatno implied contract existed. As the court stated:
Generally, New York State courtshave permitted a student to bring a breach of implied contract action againstan institution of higher education. See Radin v. Albert Einstein College ofMed. Of Yeshiva Univ., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9772 at *30 (S.D.N.Y May 20,2005). However, a student must identify specific language in the school’sbulletins, circulars, catalogues and handbooks which establishes the particular”contractual” right or obligation alleged by the student in order tomake out an implied contract claim. See Sweeney v. Columbia Univ., 270, AD2d335, 336 (2d Dep’t 2000); Vought v. Teacher’s Coll., Columbia Univ., 127 AD2d654, 655 (2d Dep’t 1987). General statements of policy are not sufficient tocreate a contractual obligation. Only specific promises that are material tothe student’s relationship with the school can establish the existence of animplied contract. See Lloyd v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 906, at *27-*28 (N.D.NY Jan, 26, 1999). “To state a valid claim fora breach of contract, a plaintiff must state when and how the defendantbreached those specific promises. Radin, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 9772, at *32.
In the case at bar, Plaintifffails to cite any specific provision or communication from NYLS that wouldestablish an implied contract. One cannot breach a contractual promise that wasnever made. Radin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9772, at *37. Plaintiff fails to pointto any document or communication that gives rise to a promise which NYLS hasbreached. See Chira v. Columbia Univ., 289 F. Supp.2d 47, 485, 486 (S.D.N.Y 2003
Moreover, New York courts haverepeatedly refused to interfere in the academic procedures of educationalinstitutions and cannot and will not intervene in disputes involving aneducational institution’s grading system.
As the New York Court of Appealshas stated quite clearly in Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241,246-247 (1990).
As a general rule, judicial reviewof grading disputes would inappropriately involve the courts in the very coreof academic and educational decision making. Moreover, to so involve the courtsin assessing the propriety of particular grades would promote litigation bycountless unsuccessful students and thus undermine the credibility of theacademic determinations of educational institutions. We conclude, therefore,that, in the absence of demonstrated bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness,irrationality or a constitutional or statutory violation, a student’s challengeto a particular grade or other academic determination relating to a genuinesubstantive evaluation of the student’s academic capabilities is beyond thescope of judicial review.
Plaintiff is requesting this Courtto intrude upon an area to which New York Courts have [*3]strongly refused tointervene. Here, Plaintiff has shown no evidence of “bad faith,arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality or a constitutional or statutoryviolation.” id. NYLS clearly communicated through the student handbookthat NYLS utilizes a letter grading system under which all of its students areevaluated. This Court declines to interfere with this quintessential functionof an educational institution.
I would file this one in “nice try.”
[Meredith R. Miller]