Feder v. Cornell Univ.

2026 NY Slip Op 30779(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 659093/2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Paul A. Goetz

Opinion

Feder v Cornell Univ. 2026 NY Slip Op 30779(U) March 4, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 659093/2025 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6590932025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/12/2026 3:45:54 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 659093/2025 SAMANTHA FEDER, MOTION DATE 10/13/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- CORNELL UNIVERSITY, LAURA E. RILEY, CURTIS ST. SURIN, NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, JOHN DECISION + ORDER ON DOES 1-10, ABC ENTITIES 1-10 MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 were read on this motion to/for INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER .

In this inter alia breach of an employment contract action, plaintiff moves pursuant to

CPLR § 6301 to enjoin defendants from enforcing the non-renewal of contract notice (the notice)

served on plaintiff, and from interfering with or modifying plaintiff’s employment and medical

staff privileges at defendants’ locations prior to the issuance of the notice.1

BACKGROUND

After twenty years of practicing obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) in New York City,

plaintiff was recruited to join defendants Cornell University a/k/a Weill Cornell Medical Center

(WCM) and New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) (collectively, the hospital) (NYSCEF Doc

No 2 [Complaint] ¶ 21). Defendant Laura E. Riley, MD, was the chair of OB/GYN at the

1 Plaintiff also sought to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s ability to book patients for future appointments, but that issue was resolved by stipulation on February 5, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc No 85 ¶ 1 [“Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from interfering in any way with Plaintiff’s ability to book patients”]). 659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 1 of 9 Motion No. 001

1 of 9 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

hospital and participated in the recruitment process, along with chief administrative officer for

WCM’s OB/GYN department, defendant Curtis St. Surin (id. ¶ 22).

By letter dated August 17, 2020, plaintiff entered into an agreement with the hospital

whereby plaintiff would be appointed, effective January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023, to

the full time faculty of WCM as assistant professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology (id. ¶

23; NYSCEF Doc No 4 [Employment Agreement]). The letter provided that “[c]onditions for

renewal, if renewal is possible, will include funding and your performance,” and “[i]f renewal is

not possible, you will be given appropriate notice based on the guidelines set forth in the

Academic Staff Handbook” (id. ¶ 23; Employment Agreement, p. 1). The academic staff

handbook (the handbook) provides, inter alia, that “[r]enewable [a]ppointments are made with

the prospect of renewal at the end of the initial term, such that a renewable appointment remains

in effect unless and until there is notice of ‘non-renewal,’” and staff members with under six

years of employment such as plaintiff are entitled to six months’ notice of non-renewal

(NYSCEF Doc No 7 [Handbook] p. 97).

Though the parties did not enter a renewal agreement upon expiration of the initial term

on December 31, 2023, plaintiff has been working for the hospital continuously since her

appointment (Complaint ¶¶ 60-61). She alleges she had “never been subject to any formal

discipline by the Hospital and has an exemplary track record of serving the medical needs of

women” (id. ¶ 45).

On June 16, 2025, several weeks before the end of fiscal year 2025, plaintiff was invited

to a meeting to discuss “alignment in the upcoming fiscal year” on June 18, 2025 (id. ¶ 46). On

that date, plaintiff “was joined on video by Dr. Riley, Mr. St. Surin, and a Hospital Human

Resources representative” (id. ¶ 48). During the meeting, Dr. Riley informed plaintiff that her

659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 2 of 9 Motion No. 001

2 of 9 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

employment contract would not be renewed, meaning plaintiff’s employment would end on June

30, 2026; plaintiff alleges that Dr. Riley stated that she “doesn’t have to explain why” they opted

for non-renewal (id. ¶ 50). The notice plaintiff received following the meeting also did not

provide a reason for non-renewal (id. ¶ 55; NYSCEF Doc No 12).

Plaintiff alleges that the decision not to renew her contract was retaliatory based on

plaintiff’s protected whistleblower activities, as plaintiff “complained to Dr. Riley about []

patient care issues” and “took issue with how Dr. Riley was administering the Hospital’s

[Quality Assurance (QA)] program” (id. ¶¶ 98-115 [alleging that shortly after plaintiff

complained about another doctor, “Dr. Riley attempted to turn the QA Committee against Dr.

Feder”]).2 Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Riley had discriminatory motives for the non-renewal

decision, as plaintiff is white and Dr. Riley, who is black, “expressed a particular interest in

prioritizing the advancement of employees of color” (id. ¶ 117 [in May of 2021, Dr. Riley

“pronounce[d] that her focus was on the academic promotion of Black physicians”]).

Additionally, plaintiff alleges that Dr. Riley displayed “looks of disdain about Dr. Feder’s

[Jewish] religion and ethnicity,” “was pointedly silent about the October 7, 2023 attacks and its

impact on her Jewish staff,” and “has knowingly scheduled mandatory OBGYN meetings and

social events on Jewish holidays such as Yom Kippur and Hanukkah” (id. ¶¶ 123-24).

Plaintiff alleges that following receipt of the notice, Dr. Riley “set out to fabricate a false

performance record in an attempt to cover up her unlawful conduct” (id. ¶ 129). Specifically,

“[d]uring the July 7th, 2025 official Annual Faculty Review meeting, Dr. Riley’s written review

made several deliberately false statements against Dr. Feder” (id. ¶ 130 [also asserting plaintiff

has “evidence proving the falsity of Dr. Riley’s statements that will be provided in discovery”]).

2 Plaintiff does not provide dates or details of the incidents described in this portion of her complaint but asserts that relevant records will be provided in discovery (id. ¶ 115). 659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 3 of 9 Motion No. 001

3 of 9 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

Plaintiff states causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) retaliation in violation of

New York Labor Law § 740, (3) New York Labor Law § 741, (4) tortious interference with

contract and/or advantageous business relationship, (5) tortious interference with prospective

economic relations, (6) discrimination in violation of New York State Human Rights Laws

(NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Laws (NYC HRL), (7) defamation and slander,

(8) prima facie tort, (9) fraud and deceit, (10) civil conspiracy.

DISCUSSION

“A preliminary injunction substantially limits a defendant’s rights and is thus an

extraordinary provisional remedy requiring a special showing” (1234 Broadway LLC v West Side

SRO Law Project, Goddard Riverside Community Ctr., 86 AD3d 18, 23 [1st Dept 2011]). To

obtain a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR § 6301, a movant must demonstrate, by clear

and convincing evidence: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury if a

preliminary injunction is not granted, and (3) a balance of equities in their favor (CPLR § 6301;

Barbes Rest. Inc. v ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 AD3d 340, 431 [1st Dept 2016] [citing Nobu Next

Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]]). “[T]he purpose of a preliminary

injunction is to maintain the status quo,” and the decision to grant or deny a preliminary

injunction rests in the discretion of the motion court (360 W. 11th LLC v ACG Credit Co. II,

LLC, 46 AD3d 367, 367 [1st Dept 2007]).

Plaintiff argues that she has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her

claim that the non-renewal notice “breached the Employment Agreement because, absent

impossibility, Dr. Feder’s employment must be renewed” (NYSCEF Doc No 14, p. 4 [emphasis

omitted]). She asserts that “[d]efendants have not, and cannot, show that it was ‘not possible,’ to

renew the Employment Agreement,” and “[w]hile funding or performance are also issues to be

659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 4 of 9 Motion No. 001

4 of 9 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

considered, Defendants have never claimed [] that there is a lack of funding or performance

issues” (id., p. 7). Plaintiff argues that without injunctive relief, “the Non-Renewal will strip Dr.

Feder of her practice that she has worked over 25 years to build, her patient base, and her referral

network which will severely disrupt continuity of care, and destroy Dr. Feder’s professional

reputation, career, patient relationships, future referral opportunities, the goodwill she has

worked so hard to obtain over the last 25 years, and standing in the medical community” (id., pp.

9-12 [noting that plaintiff’s “newly pregnant patients will be delivering after the June 30, 2026

Non-Renewal date,” meaning plaintiff “will be forced to turn away any new OB/GYN patients or

take them on knowing that she will have to abandon them”]). Plaintiff argues that equities weigh

in favor of an injunction “because monetary damages cannot repair or redress a destroyed

physician-patient relationship, a destroyed career or a destroyed reputation, exactly what is at

issue in this case” (id., p. 12).

In opposition, defendants3 assert that plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction because she

“seeks to require Cornell to . . . extend her employment beyond her current termination date” and

therefore must meet a heightened standard (NYSCEF Doc No 29, p. 7). Defendants argue that

plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is unlikely to succeed because she “does not have tenure[;]

[h]er appointment is renewably only [and] therefore can be terminated without cause, so long as

she receives adequate notice – which she did” (id., p. 16). They further assert that plaintiff’s

employment was not conditioned only on funding and her performance, as such conditions were

part of a non-exhaustive list (id., p. 15). Defendants argue that plaintiff has not shown irreparable

harm in the absence of an injunction “because termination of a physician’s employment is

compensable with money damages and remediable at the end of a lawsuit” (id., p. 10). Finally,

3 Defendant NYP adopts the arguments set forth in the opposing brief of the other named defendants (NYSCEF Doc No 33). 659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 5 of 9 Motion No. 001

5 of 9 [* 5] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

defendants argue that the equities balance in their favor because the requested relief would

severely burden the hospital by “forc[ing] it to continue employing a physician” even though

they have “serious concerns about Dr. Feder’s performance, particularly her professionalism in

dealing with other colleagues” (id., pp. 16-17).4

Plaintiff fails to make the requisite showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits of

her breach of contract claim. Plaintiff asserts that “absent impossibility, [her] employment must

be renewed” (NYSCEF Doc No 14, p. 4 [emphasis omitted]), but that is not what the contract

says. The appointment letter states that “if renewal is possible”—and defendants do not dispute

that it is—“[c]onditions for renewal [] will include funding and your performance” (Employment

Agreement, p. 1), indicating that renewal is contingent on conditions besides possibility. Though

plaintiff states with more clarity in her reply that “Dr. Feder’s appointment was renewable

indefinitely, subject only to funding, performance, or impossibility” (NYSCEF Doc No 39, p. 2

[emphasis altered]), that reading is also unsupported by the language of the employment

agreement, since it states that conditions for renewal include (but are not necessarily limited to)

funding and plaintiff’s performance (Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v New York State Dept. of

Taxation & Fin., 20 NY3d 1, 9 n.2 [2012] [“the use of the word ‘includ[e]’ indicate[s] that the

list [is] not exhaustive”], citing Federal Land Bank v Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 US 95 [1941]).

As noted supra, defendants assert that they have “serious concerns about Dr. Feder’s

performance, particularly her professionalism in dealing with other colleagues” (NYSCEF Doc

No 29, p. 16 n.8). While they do not provide evidence displaying such interpersonal issues, it is

4 In their brief, defendants assert that “[f]rom the outset of her employment in 2021, Dr. Feder had difficult interpersonal interactions with other employees”; in response to complaints from nurses in 2021 and 2022, the hospital offered plaintiff “professional coaching to improve her communication skills” “but issues persisted”; and “in March 2025, in response to a complaint about unprofessional interactions with staff,” the hospital gave plaintiff further “guidance on treating staff and colleagues with respect,” but “she did not appear to recognize any problem with her communication style or interpersonal interactions” (id., p. 5). As noted in plaintiff’s reply, defendants did not submit an affidavit or other evidence supporting these allegations. 659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 6 of 9 Motion No. 001

6 of 9 [* 6] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

plaintiff’s burden, as the movant seeking the “drastic remedy [of] [p]reliminary injunctive

relief,” to establish “a clear right thereto [] under the law and the undisputed facts upon the

moving papers” (Corporate Coffee Sys., LLC v R.U.G. Consulting, LLC, 235 AD3d 829, 830 [2nd

Dept 2025]). Plaintiff has not established that all conditions of renewal—even those which are

unnamed—have been met such that defendants likely breached the employment agreement by

declining to renew plaintiff’s appointment, especially since the agreement affords them

significant latitude in making such decisions (compare Employment Agreement, p. 1 [renewal of

appointment depends on factors “includ[ing] funding and your performance”] with Handbook, p.

53 [staff appointed with tenure may only be dismissed “for just cause” or external factors such as

reduction or elimination of programs or “financial exigency”]). Plaintiff therefore fails to satisfy

the first required element for entitlement to a preliminary injunction: a likelihood of success on

the merits.

Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated that she will suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of a preliminary injunction. The harms she alleges (besides those relating to the part of

her motion originally seeking to enjoin defendants from preventing her from booking future

appointments, and those relating to harm to patients rather than harm to plaintiff)—i.e., damage

to patient relationships, damage to reputation and career, and loss of referrals—are compensable

by money damages (Mabry v Neighborhood Defender Serv., 88 AD3d 505, 506 [1st Dept 2011]

[“Plaintiff has not shown irreparable harm, since he will be entitled to reinstatement and back

pay if he prevails on the merits and his termination is annulled. Moreover, absent extraordinary

circumstances, [] damage to reputation [does] not constitute irreparable harm for the purposes of

injunctive relief”] [internal citation omitted]; Dhillon v Healthnow N.Y., Inc., 32 AD3d 1197 [4th

Dept 2006] [trial court erred in granting motion seeking to enjoin defendant from not renewing

659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 7 of 9 Motion No. 001

7 of 9 [* 7] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

plaintiff-physician’s employment agreement because no irreparable harm shown]; Abramo v

HealthNow N.Y., 305 AD2d 1009, 1010 [4th Dept 2003] [plaintiff-physician’s motion seeking to

enjoin defendants from terminating his contract was properly denied because “[l]oss of

employment, although most likely to cause severe hardship, does not constitute irreparable

damage” and “[i]f plaintiff succeeds at trial, he can be adequately compensated with money

damages for the loss of patients and fees”] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Additionally, though plaintiff argues that “interference with the doctor-patient relationship is

irreparable harm” (NYSCEF Doc No 14, pp. 8-9), the case she cites in support of this

proposition is procedurally distinct (Harris v Patients Med., P.C., 169 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2019]

[trial court properly denied motion seeking to enjoin plaintiff-physician from breaching certain

restrictive covenants between her and defendant-hospital]).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence her

entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

NYP also “requests that this Court issue an order finding that NYPH is not a proper party

to this case because Feder has failed to serve NYPH with the Summons and Complaint, the

OTSC, any Motion papers, or even a single document on the docket” (NYSCEF Doc No 33).

However, this relief is improperly sought in the form of an opposing brief rather than a cross-

motion, and therefore it will not be considered.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is

659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 8 of 9 Motion No. 001

8 of 9 [* 8] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 659093/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2026

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

3/4/2026 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

659093/2025 FEDER M.D., SAMANTHA vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL Page 9 of 9 Motion No. 001

9 of 9 [* 9]