Chai v. New York University

Background

Carmen Chai, a former NYU College of Dentistry student, sued New York University, NYU College of Dentistry, Steven Resnick, Colleen Watson, Ninette Lyubarsky, Maya Ardon, Leslie Smithey, and unnamed defendants. The amended complaint pursued state-law claims against the NYU Defendants and a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Lyubarsky. The opinion states that the NYU Defendants and Lyubarsky separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Chai alleged that she had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and received approval for extra testing time while enrolled at the College of Dentistry. She alleged that Lyubarsky, then a fourth-year student assigned to oversee clinical aspects of Chai’s education, subjected her to hazing, harassment, intimidation, verbal abuse, and other misconduct during the 2021–2022 academic year. Chai also alleged that she reported Lyubarsky’s treatment of an elderly patient to Steven Resnick, after which Colleen Watson criticized her for making the report and told her that “what happens in the clinic, stays in the clinic.”

Chai further alleged that NYU failed to follow its Academic Standards and Policies for the Predoctoral Program in Dentistry. According to the complaint, NYU did not provide constructive feedback, identify her as an at-risk student, place her on monitored status, create an action plan, notify her of academic committee decisions, place her on a clinical mentorship plan, or adequately consider whether she should repeat the academic year instead of being expelled. NYU expelled her after the Spring 2022 semester, citing failing and low grades, and denied her appeal.

Documents considered

The court considered the Academic Policies because Chai attached them to the amended complaint. The court did not consider a Testing Accommodations Agreement or an Action Plan submitted by NYU because Chai disputed their authenticity and accuracy, including whether she signed or received the Action Plan.

Contract-related and unjust-enrichment claims

The court held that Chai’s breach-of-contract, implied-contract, unjust-enrichment, and implied-covenant claims were based on alleged violations of NYU’s internal academic policies. Under the court’s interpretation of New York law, challenges to a university’s internal academic or administrative decisions generally must be brought in a proceeding under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, rather than as ordinary contract claims in federal court. The court therefore dismissed Claims One, Two, Four, and Six.

The court separately held that Article 78 was not the exclusive remedy for Chai’s retaliation claims under New York Labor Law Sections 740 and 741. Those claims alleged retaliation, harassment, and expulsion after Chai reported conduct she believed involved danger to public health or safety and improper patient care. The court concluded at that stage that these claims were not limited to challenges based on NYU’s internal academic policies.

New York Labor Law retaliation claims

The court nevertheless dismissed both retaliation claims on the merits. It applied the “primary beneficiary” test, which examines whether the student or the institution primarily benefited from the relationship, including the benefits to each side and the parties’ expectations. The court found that Chai was the primary beneficiary of her clinical relationship with NYU because she was not compensated, her clinical work provided professional experience and required clinical credit hours, and the work was part of her education and preparation for professional certification. The court held that Chai was not an employee under the New York Labor Law and therefore could not recover under Sections 740 or 741. Claims Eight and Nine were dismissed.

Fraud and negligent misrepresentation

Chai alleged that NYU failed to tell her that her attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder accommodations applied only during the first two academic years rather than all four years. The court held that she pleaded the alleged omissions with enough detail to satisfy the heightened pleading rule for fraud claims. But the court dismissed the fraud claim because Chai’s own allegations showed that she enrolled in the College of Dentistry before requesting or receiving the accommodations. The court concluded that she could not have reasonably relied on the accommodation grant when deciding to enroll.

The court dismissed the negligent-misrepresentation claim for the same basic reason. Because the alleged accommodation-related representation occurred after Chai had enrolled, it could not have caused the harm she claimed resulted from enrolling or remaining enrolled.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed Chai’s sole claim against Lyubarsky for negligent infliction of emotional distress. It held that the conduct alleged—hazing, harassment, intimidation, screaming, verbal abuse, and use of Chai’s identification card to obtain dental supplies—was intentional and deliberate rather than negligent. The court also held that Chai did not adequately allege that Lyubarsky owed her a legally recognized duty of care or that a special relationship between a student mentor and a student created such a duty.

Disposition

The court granted the NYU Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Lyubarsky’s motion to dismiss. It denied Chai leave to amend the dismissed claims again, reasoning that she had already amended once and had not shown that another amendment would cure the identified deficiencies. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the Clerk to terminate the listed docket entries and close the case.