The case of G* v. Pace University revolves around a breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiff, KG, against Pace University. G sought damages of $16,281, arguing that the university failed to provide him with a student teaching placement required for the completion of his course ED 679. The dispute primarily stemmed from G's inability to obtain the necessary security clearance from the New York City Department of Education (DOE), which prevented him from fulfilling the course requirements.
The Appellate Term, Second Department, upheld the trial court’s dismissal of G's claims, affirming that the university did not breach any contract. While G contended that Pace University had admitted him to the course too late to secure a field placement and later withdrew him while his security clearance was still pending, the court found that the university had made reasonable attempts to facilitate his placement. Additionally, G was offered an alternative placement at a school outside the NYC public school system, which he declined. The court noted that the timing of his security clearance was outside the university’s control and that his disenrollment due to lack of clearance did not constitute a breach of contract.
The decision highlights the legal principle that a university-student relationship is contractual in nature, but students must demonstrate a specific, enforceable promise rather than general policy statements to substantiate a breach of contract claim. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere in academic administrative decisions unless a clear contractual violation is evident. Since G could not point to a specific obligation that Pace University failed to meet, and the university did make efforts to secure his placement, his claim was dismissed.
That poor guy got dropped from the class and the case ...
# # #
DECISION