Opinion
December 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed the tenth through twelfth causes of action of the complaint alleging, in essence, that the Columbia trustees and individual defendants had failed to provide the quality of educational environment promised and made false representations concerning the atmosphere and disciplinary process at Columbia. The court correctly found these claims to be an improper attempt to circumvent the principle that there is no cognizable tort claim in New York for "'educational malpractice'" ( Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 N.Y.2d 440, 442; Paladino v Adelphi Univ., 89 A.D.2d 85). Courts have refused to substitute their judgment for that of university officials or to review the day-to-day administration of academic policies ( Sitomer v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 133 A.D.2d 748; DeRosa v City of New York, 132 A.D.2d 592), and have recognized that there is no longer any liability under the doctrine of in loco parentis or any legal duty, under either contract or tort theory, for an academic college facility to shield students from the dangerous activities of other students ( Eiseman v State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 190-191; Wells v Bard Coll., 184 A.D.2d 304, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 971).
The twelfth cause of action for fraud was also properly dismissed as deficient since the purported representation that Columbia has an "atmosphere conducive to academic pursuits" is a mere expression of opinion, rather than a misrepresentation of a material fact, and is insufficient to support an action for fraud ( Paladino v Adelphi Univ., supra, at 94).
Nor did the IAS Court err in dismissing the thirteenth cause of action, alleging that individual defendant Blank had, in bad faith, falsified plaintiff's student records. Plaintiff failed to state the circumstances constituting the wrong and to allege each of the elements of fraud, i.e., misrepresentation of a material fact, scienter, justifiable reliance, and injury, with the particularity mandated by CPLR 3016 (b) ( Lanzi v Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 1057, 1058, affd 43 N.Y.2d 778).
In any event, punitive damages would not be recoverable for the conduct alleged in the tenth through thirteenth causes of action since no wrongdoing of a continuous and systematic nature aimed at the public generally is involved and since any underlying private wrong would be adequately compensated by monetary damages ( Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354; Samovar of Russia Jewelry Antique Corp. v Generali Gen. Ins. Co., 102 A.D.2d 279, 283).
Finally, the cross motion by plaintiff pro se seeking to amend the thirteenth cause of action of the complaint to include Columbia University as an additional defendant was properly denied because the proposed amendment was devoid of merit ( Mobil Oil Corp. v Joshi, 202 A.D.2d 318, 319), and because plaintiff failed to furnish the proposed amended pleading ( Abbott v Herzfeld Rubin, 202 A.D.2d 351, 352).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.