Sheridan v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
| Decision Date | 02 July 2002 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER F. SHERIDAN, Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
We reject plaintiff's argument that as a degree holder he is in a fundamentally different position from the plaintiffs in cases holding that a university has no legal obligation to provide a diploma or transcript to a graduating student or former student with outstanding financial obligations to the university (see, Gray v St. John's Univ., 2001 NY Slip Op 40243[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]; Martin v Pratt Inst., 278 AD2d 390 [2d Dept], lv denied 96 NY2d 715; Matter of Spas v Wharton, 106 Misc 2d 180 [Sup Ct, Albany County]). There is no merit to plaintiff's argument that defendant's refusal to forward his transcript to graduate schools effectively revokes his degree in violation of defendant's charter (Education Law § 226 [9]) and an implied promise by a university to its graduates not to interfere with the privileges and immunities of his or her degree. The challenged policy is clearly "expedient for carrying into effect the designs of [defendant's] institution," as expressly permitted by its charter, and, while the policy may compromise plaintiff's applications to graduate schools, it does not revoke defendant's certification that plaintiff possesses all of the knowledge and skills represented by the degree.
Plaintiff's other causes of action all lack merit. The breach of contract claim, based on an alleged, postdegree agreement under which plaintiff gave defendant a promissory note in exchange for defendant's promise to release his transcript, does not allege the essential terms of the note or the agreement in nonconclusory language, or plaintiff's performance of his obligations thereunder (see, Matter of Sud v Sud, 211 AD2d 423, 424). Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails because the challenged policy does not violate defendant's charter or the law, and also because the policy is not so outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be utterly intolerable in a civilized community (see, Wolkstein v Morgenstern, 275 AD2d 635, 636-637). Plaintiff's fraud claim, based on an allegation that defendant misrepresented to him that it would release his transcript if he obtained a bank loan and used it to reduce his obligation to the university, should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boehner v. Heise
...provisions within a contract upon which the breach of contract claim is based. See Sheridan v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York, 296 A.D.2d 314, 315, 745 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep't 2002); Matter of Sud v. Sud, 211 A.D.2d 423, 424, 621 N.Y.S.2d 37 (1st Dep't 1995). Here, Plaintiffs......
-
Scott v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co. (In re Scott)
...language, the essential terms of the contract and which provision was breached." (citing Sheridan v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. , 296 A.D.2d 314, 745 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep't 2002) ); City of Syracuse v. Loomis Armored US, LLC , No. 5:11-cv-00744, 2012 WL 88332, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2012) (di......
-
Eed Holdings v. Palmer Johnson Acquisition Corp.
...negligent misstatements made in the context of arms-length business transactions. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 296 A.D.2d 314, 316, 745 N.Y.S.2d 18, 19 (1st Dep't 2002) (negligent misrepresentation claim dismissed "since, at the time of the alleged misrepresentation, t......
-
M&T Bank Corp. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...any special professional training or past experience that would render his expertise “unique”); Sheridan v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 296 A.D.2d 314, 316, 745 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep't 2002) (dismissing negligent misrepresentation claim upon finding that parties were clearly acting at arm's ......