Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Weston v. Cornell University
Citations: 116 A.D.3d 1128; 983 N.Y.S.2d 353
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 3, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed against an order from the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.) that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, hired as an associate professor in 1998 under a letter stating she would receive tenure, faced unsuccessful tenure applications in 2003 and 2005, resulting in her employment termination in 2007. She subsequently initiated legal action for breach of contract and gender discrimination and also filed a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the 2005 tenure review process. Initially, the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.) dismissed her breach of contract claim, but this dismissal was reversed on appeal (56 AD3d 1074 [2008]). The article 78 proceeding was also dismissed, after which the defendant sought summary judgment based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.) granted this motion, leading to the current appeal. The appellate court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the core issues of breach of contract and gender discrimination were not adjudicated in the prior article 78 proceeding. The court clarified that while the plaintiff referenced these issues in her petition, her primary argument was procedural compliance regarding the tenure denial, not the merits of her claims. The prior court only addressed whether the defendant complied with its procedures and did not resolve the substantive issues of breach or discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the previous order, determined that the claims were not actually litigated, and remitted the case back to the Supreme Court for a merits-based review of the defendant's summary judgment motion. The decision was supported by Judges Lahtinen, E, Stein, and Garry, J.J. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.