Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered April 10, 2012, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action in the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant New York Medical College.
“An implied contract exists between [a school] and its students such that if a student complies with the terms prescribed by [the school], he or she will obtain the degree which he or she sought” (Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d 1049 , 1054 [2012]; see Vought v Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ., 127 AD2d 654 [1987]). “ ‘The essence of the implied contract is that an academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students’ ” (Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d at 1054 , quoting Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 408 , 414 [1980]). “The rights and obligations of the parties as contained in the [school’s] bulletins, circulars and regulations made available to the student, become a part of this contract” (Vought v Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ., 127 AD2d at 655 ).
Here, the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, construed liberally, state a cause of action against the defendant New York Medical College (hereinafter NYMC) to recover damages for breach of contract. The second cause of action set forth in the amended complaint alleged, among other things, that NYMC failed to comply with its obligation to maintain the plaintiffs academic records, that NYMC was required to provide her with a personally tailored program plan as set forth in the student handbook, and that NYMC failed to follow that plan (see Paladino v Adelphi Univ., 89 AD2d 85 , 92 [1982]; cf. Kickertz v New York Univ., 110 AD3d 268 [2013]). However, the third cause of action, which alleged breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, is not a viable cause of action against NYMC because it is duplicative of the second cause of action (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 AD3d 287 [2011]; compare Elmhurst Dairy, Inc. v Bartlett Dairy, Inc., 97 AD3d 781 , 784-785 [2012]).
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action insofar as asserted against NYMC, as they concern only academic and administrative decisions and should, therefore, have been raised in a proceeding
Cases cited
- Rizvi v. New York College of Osteopathic Medicine of New York Institute of Technology 98 AD3d 1049 at 1054 p. 575
- Vought v. Teachers College, Columbia University 127 AD2d 654 p. 575
- Olsson v. Board of Higher Education 49 NY2d 408 at 414 p. 575
- Paladino v. Adelphi University 89 AD2d 85 at 92 p. 575
- Kickertz v. New York University 110 AD3d 268 p. 575, p. 576
- MBIA Insurance v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 87 AD3d 287 p. 575
- Elmhurst Dairy, Inc. v. Bartlett Dairy, Inc. 97 AD3d 781 at 784-785 p. 575
- Maas v. Cornell University 94 NY2d 87 at 92 p. 576
- Gary v. New York University 48 AD3d 235 at 236 p. 576
- Demas v. Levitsky 291 AD2d 653 at 660 p. 576
- Klinge v. Ithaca College 244 AD2d 611 at 613 p. 576
- Gertler v. Goodgold 107 AD2d 481 at 485 p. 576
- Gertler v. Goodgold 66 NY2d 946 p. 576