Sherman v. Pace University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherman v. Pace University

17 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 282 (Sherman v. Pace University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherman v. Pace University, 17 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s various claims seeking damages for defendant’s practice of charging allegedly exorbitant fees when overdue tuition accounts are referred for collection were properly dismissed since, inter alia, plaintiff has never paid the complained-of fees and has alleged no other legally compensable injury attributable to the purportedly wrongful conduct (see Frank v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 502 [2002]). Nor is plaintiff entitled to injunctive relief, having for a period of three years persisted in the inequitable course of failing to pay or otherwise resolve his overdue tuition account despite defendant’s numerous requests (see Levy v Braverman, 24 AD2d 430 [1965]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s various claims seeking damages for defendant’s practice of charging allegedly exorbitant fees when overdue tuition accounts are referred for collection were properly dismissed since, inter alia, plaintiff has never paid the complained-of fees and has alleged no other legally compensable injury attributable to the purportedly wrongful conduct (see Frank v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 502 [2002]). Nor is plaintiff entitled to injunctive relief, having for a period of three years persisted in the inequitable course of failing to pay or otherwise resolve his overdue tuition account despite defendant’s numerous requests (see Levy v Braverman, 24 AD2d 430 [1965]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-pace-university-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack