## Facts

- Dr. Menard M. Gertler, a tenured physician-faculty member at New York University School of Medicine, sued NYU, NYU Medical Center, and several faculty-administrators.
- He alleged defendants engaged in a sustained course of conduct intended to undermine his career and deprive him of the “benefits and privileges” of tenure.
- Alleged conduct included attempting to relocate his office in a way he claimed would impair his research and status; failing to provide adequate research space; assigning unfair teaching duties; and failing to provide nondiscriminatory treatment and adequate grievance procedures.
- He also alleged interference with his ability to obtain and maintain research grants, including actions said to have undermined a grant application process.
- He characterized these expectations as “contractual concomitants” of tenure (e.g., adequate research space, fair teaching assignments, cooperation with grants under discernible procedures, and fair grievance procedures).
- He sought injunctive relief regarding the office relocation and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (and alternatively for summary judgment); the trial court denied the motion, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenured faculty appointment, without an express contractual provision, creates enforceable rights to specific working conditions such as research space, grant-related administrative support, teaching assignments, and grievance procedures.
2. Whether courts should review and second-guess internal academic and administrative determinations concerning matters like office allocation, research support, grant administration, and internal procedures through contract and tort claims.
3. Whether the tort claims for interference and prima facie tort can stand where the asserted “tenure rights” are not cognizable contractual rights and the dispute concerns internal academic administration.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
- The court held the complaint did not plead a valid contractual basis for the broad “privileges” plaintiff claimed as incidents of tenure.
- The court further held the challenged matters were academic and administrative determinations generally not subject to judicial intervention.
- Because the contract theory failed and the claims arose from nonjusticiable academic administration, the related tort causes of action were also dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Academic tenure ordinarily functions as protection against dismissal absent specified cause; it does not, by itself, create enforceable contractual rights to particular amenities, working conditions, or favorable discretionary administrative treatment.
- Contract claims against a university must be grounded in express terms or clearly implied obligations found in governing documents or specific promises; generalized expectations about space, support, or procedures are not enforceable as contract terms.
- Courts generally decline to review discretionary academic and administrative determinations (e.g., space allocation, teaching assignments, grant administration, internal grievance processes) absent a clear legal duty, an express contractual violation, or comparable extraordinary circumstances.
- Tort claims predicated on interference with purported contractual or economic interests fail where the underlying asserted rights are not legally cognizable or the dispute is, in substance, a nonjusticiable academic governance matter.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a tenured professor’s contract and tort claims because tenure did not supply enforceable rights to the specific working conditions he sought, and the dispute centered on internal academic and administrative decisions that courts generally will not supervise.


Gertler v. Goodgold, 487 N.Y.S.2d 565 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1985)