From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cheves v. the Trustees of D.C. Univ.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
89 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Summary

holding that the alumni relations brochure listing certain benefits and services generally available to alumni did not guarantee alumni access to campus

Summary of this case from Bailey v. N.Y. Law Sch.

Opinion

2011-11-3

Gerald I. CHEVES, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.The TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, sued herein as Columbia University, Defendant–Respondent.


Gerald I. Cheves, appellant pro se.Toback, Bernstein & Reiss LLP, New York (Brian K. Bernstein of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered May 25, 2010, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action arising from plaintiff being banned from the campus of Columbia University, dismissing plaintiff's causes of action alleging breach of contract and defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action was proper. “The rights and obligations of the parties, as contained in the university's bulletins, become a part of the parties' contract,” but “only specific promises set forth in a school's bulletins, circulars, and handbooks, which are material to the student's relationship with the school, can establish the existence of an implied contract” ( Keefe v. New York Law School, 71 A.D.3d 569, 570, 897 N.Y.S.2d 94 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Here, although the Alumni Relations brochure lists certain benefits and services generally available to alumni, nothing in that document guarantees unfettered, irrevocable access for alumni to the campus or its facilities. Accordingly, even if read broadly, the complaint fails to rely on a specific promise material to plaintiff's relationship with Columbia that has been breached.

The court properly determined that the cause of action sounding in defamation was time-barred (CPLR 215). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, defendant did not “continue[ ]” its allegedly tortious conduct by repeating in the motion to dismiss that plaintiff committed acts of harassment. Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings pertinent to the litigation are privileged (see Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman, 56 A.D.3d 358, 359, 869 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2008] ). Furthermore, there is no support for plaintiff's proposition that the statute of limitations governing actions for defamation is subject to a “continuing tort” exception.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cheves v. the Trustees of D.C. Univ.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 3, 2011
89 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

holding that the alumni relations brochure listing certain benefits and services generally available to alumni did not guarantee alumni access to campus

Summary of this case from Bailey v. N.Y. Law Sch.

holding that alumni relations brochure listing certain benefits and services generally available to alumni did not guarantee alumni access to campus

Summary of this case from Nungesser v. Columbia Univ.

holding that alumni relations brochure listing certain benefits and services generally available to alumni did not guarantee alumni access to campus

Summary of this case from Nungesser v. Columbia Univ.

In Cheves, the court dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract claim on the ground that no provision in the alumni relations brochure guaranteed alumni unfettered access to the school's campus, and thus the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant had breached a specific promise to him.

Summary of this case from Lane v. Pace Univ.
Case details for

Cheves v. the Trustees of D.C. Univ.

Case Details

Full title:Gerald I. CHEVES, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.The TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 3, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
931 N.Y.S.2d 877
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7731

Citing Cases

Yodice v. Touro Coll. & Univ. Sys.

To state a claim for breach of an implied contract, a student must identify “specific promises” made in those…

Petrisko v. Animal Med. Ctr.

The motion court correctly dismissed as untimely the defamation claims arising from statements that were…