From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Drucker v. New York Univ

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 2, 1969
59 Misc. 2d 789 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)

Opinion

April 2, 1969

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, LEONARD L. FINZ, J.

Burke Burke ( William C. Porth of counsel), for appellant.

Milton E. Jacobowitz and Daniel Weiss for respondent.


Plaintiff's application for admission to defendant's College of Dentistry was accompanied by a $200 deposit. Defendant's letter of acceptance stated that such deposit was refundable only for withdrawal in case of serious illness. Thereafter, plaintiff paid the further sum of $910, representing the balance of tuition and fees for the first half of the year and registered as a freshman. Two days later he resigned from the school for the purpose of attending Kirksville College of Osteopathy and Surgery. Defendant's bulletin, which was allegedly supplied to plaintiff in a kit containing the application form, provided, so far as is here pertinent, that there was no right of refund of tuition or fees in cases of withdrawal or dismissal. The court below granted summary judgment to plaintiff for the sum of $910, and, in effect, held that the $200 deposit was equivalent to the damages suffered by defendant.

In our opinion, the contract was entire and indivisible. Irrespective of whether plaintiff's enrollment was subject to the conditions contained in the bulletin, it clearly appears that plaintiff breached the contract without cause and, consequently, is not entitled to recover tuition paid in advance ( Van Brink v. Lehman, 199 App. Div. 784; William v. Stein, 100 Misc. 677). It is well settled that a party may not recover any payments made under a contract which he has breached ( Waldman v. Greenberg, 265 App. Div. 827, affd. 289 N.Y. 769; MacMurray v. City of Long Beach, 266 App. Div. 679, revd. on other grounds 292 N.Y. 286; 11 Williston, Contracts [3d ed.], § 1352; 17A C.J.S., Contracts, § 458).

The order granting summary judgment to plaintiff should be unanimously reversed, without costs, judgment vacated and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing complaint granted. Appeal from order denying motion for reconsideration dismissed as academic.

Concur — GROAT, P.J., MARGETT and RINALDI, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Drucker v. New York Univ

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 2, 1969
59 Misc. 2d 789 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)
Case details for

Drucker v. New York Univ

Case Details

Full title:BARRY L. DRUCKER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Apr 2, 1969

Citations

59 Misc. 2d 789 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)
300 N.Y.S.2d 749

Citing Cases

Dubrow v. Briansky Ballet Center

Withdrawal implies self-inducement. In this respect, Drucker v. New York Univ. ( 59 Misc.2d 789) demonstrates…

Andre v. Pace Univ

In addition, the defendant seeks enforcement of its contract with the plaintiffs and demands payment of the…