Loebl v. New York University

• Decision Date: 24 November 1998
• Citation: 255 A.D.2d 257,680 N.Y.S.2d 495
• Parties: 131 Ed. Law Rep. 237, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,268 In re Application of Dina LOEBL, Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents-Appellants. In re Application of Dina LOEBL, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 495

680 N.Y.S.2d 495

131 Ed. Law Rep. 237, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,268

In re Application of Dina LOEBL, Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent,

For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, etc., et al.,

Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.

In re Application of Dina LOEBL, Petitioner-Appellant,

For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Nov. 24, 1998.

Robert A. Roseman, for Dina Loebl.

Ada Meloy, for New York University, etc., et al.

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS and SAXE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which granted the petition to the extent of directing the respondents to expeditiously conduct a further tenure review of petitioner in compliance with the University's own rules of tenure review, the recommendations for re-review suggested by Vice President Stedman's July 6, 1994 memorandum, and based on the report of the University Grievance Committee, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Order, same court and Justice, entered March 9, 1998, which denied petitioner's motion to punish respondents for both civil and criminal contempt based upon their alleged failure to comply with the foregoing judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is now settled that courts should not "invade, and only rarely assume academic oversight, except with the greatest caution and restraint, in such sensitive areas as faculty appointment, promotion and tenure, especially in institutions of higher learning" (Matter of Pace College v. Commission on Human Rights of City of N.Y., 38 N.Y.2d 28, 38, 377 N.Y.S.2d 471, 339 N.E.2d 880 [citations omitted] ). Where a university has adopted rules or guidelines in such areas, the courts will only intervene where there has not been substantial compliance with those procedures (see, Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 49 N.Y.2d 652, 660, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302).

Here, despite the 3-2 vote of the ad hoc tenure review committee, in petitioner's favor, the dean of the School of Education, Ann Marcus, recommended to New York University's president that petitioner, an associate professor in the School's Department of Occupational Therapy, be denied tenure, essentially because of her insufficient record of research and publication in refereed, scholarly journals.

Petitioner then requested a review of the tenure denial by the University's Faculty Council Grievance Committee, which recommended that her tenure application be reconsidered. As a result, University Senior Vice President Harvey J. Stedman, acting for the President, issued a memorandum, dated July 6, 1994, which, based upon the recommendation of the Grievance Committee, asked Dean Marcus "to redo the tenure review before a final determination is made by the President and myself." Although the Stedman Memorandum directed that the tenure review be redone, it did not state that it endorsed any of the Grievance Committee's specific criticisms of the manner in which petitioner was reviewed, nor did it direct the dean to adopt any of the Grievance Committee's recommendations as to how the re-review should be conducted.

In October 1994, petitioner was advised of the procedures for the re-review, which were the School of Education Personnel Policies and Procedures for Promotion, Tenure and Termination of Faculty. The School's dean appointed four tenured faculty members, including one of the two tenured members of petitioner's department who had been members of the original tenure review committee. Despite petitioner's objections to the way it was being conducted, the re-review proceeded and resulted in the unanimous recommendation of the re-review committee to deny petitioner tenure, which recommendation was adopted by the University president. This proceeding ensued.

In denying respondents' motion to dismiss the petition, the IAS court found, in pertinent part, that the tenure re-review process was flawed in that the standards applied did not comport with either the School of Education's ordinary tenure review proceedings or the suggestions of the University's Grievance Committee as, according to the court, adopted in the Stedman...