Goodman v. New York University

New York Court of Appeals

Goodman v. New York University

351 N.E.2d 423, 39 N.Y.2d 793, 385 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2736

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 351 N.E.2d 423 (Goodman v. New York University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodman v. New York University, 351 N.E.2d 423, 39 N.Y.2d 793, 385 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2736 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. In support of the motion for summary judgment, the defendant university submitted a copy of its by-law 73 which clearly shows that the plaintiff, in his capacity as director of the United States Navy research project at the university, was not entitled to tenure or the benefits related to a tenured position. In addition, the motion papers contain a copy of the memorandum distributed to all persons connected [794]*794with the project, including plaintiff, prior to its termination, informing them that they will not be entitled to severance pay. Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted nothing of an evidentiary nature to support the allegations in his complaint that he was entitled, as a matter of university policy or contractual right, to tenure and severance pay. Since no triable issue was raised, the Appellate Division properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. In support of the motion for summary judgment, the defendant university submitted a copy of its by-law 73 which clearly shows that the plaintiff, in his capacity as director of the United States Navy research project at the university, was not entitled to tenure or the benefits related to a tenured position. In addition, the motion papers contain a copy of the memorandum distributed to all persons connected [794]*794with the project, including plaintiff, prior to its termination, informing them that they will not be entitled to severance pay. Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted nothing of an evidentiary nature to support the allegations in his complaint that he was entitled, as a matter of university policy or contractual right, to tenure and severance pay. Since no triable issue was raised, the Appellate Division properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 N.E.2d 423, 39 N.Y.2d 793, 385 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-new-york-university-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack