Silverman v. New York University School of Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. New York University School of Law

193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 314

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

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 411 (Silverman v. New York University School of Law) 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

Silverman v. New York University School of Law, 193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J., upon decision of Francis Pécora, J.), entered April 2, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since the destruction of his exam, even if motivated by animus toward him, was not so outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303), and also fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract, since his allegations that defendants violated certain provisions of the Student Handbook are flatly contradicted by the Handbook itself (see, Roberts v Pollack, 92 AD2d 440, 444).

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff’s grievance is judicially redressable, if at all (see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241), only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but that conversion to such a proceeding is not warranted since plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is now barred from seeking judicial review by the four-month Statute of Limitations (see, Gertler v Goodgold, 107 AD2d 481, 487, 489, affd for reasons stated in opn of Sullivan, J., 66 NY2d 946). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J., upon decision of Francis Pécora, J.), entered April 2, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since the destruction of his exam, even if motivated by animus toward him, was not so outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303), and also fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract, since his allegations that defendants violated certain provisions of the Student Handbook are flatly contradicted by the Handbook itself (see, Roberts v Pollack, 92 AD2d 440, 444).

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff’s grievance is judicially redressable, if at all (see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241), only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but that conversion to such a proceeding is not warranted since plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is now barred from seeking judicial review by the four-month Statute of Limitations (see, Gertler v Goodgold, 107 AD2d 481, 487, 489, affd for reasons stated in opn of Sullivan, J., 66 NY2d 946). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-new-york-university-school-of-law-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack