On Tuesday, despite a series of decisions against them, nine alumni of New York Law School filed a motion for leave to appeal their case—one of the first of similar lawsuits around the country—to the New York State Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), continuing their attempt to hold the school liable for allegedly distributing fraudulent and misleading data regarding the employment of its graduates. Plaintiffs’ legal team—led by Jesse Strauss, Frank Raimond, and David Anziska—argued in the motion for leave that the Court of Appeals should hear the case in order to clarify the legal issues for the alumni and law schools alike, since lower court judges have cited differing grounds for dismissing nearly identical cases. In addition, Plaintiffs argued that the New York dismissals are not in keeping with rulings in California that have been more favorable to similar fraud suits.
The complaint, originally filed in August 2011, alleged that the law school’s data regarding post-graduation employment rates—which reported that approximately 90-92% of New York Law School graduates secured employment within nine months of graduating—led the alumni to apply to the school and anticipate a certain type of employment upon graduation. The plaintiffs sought $225 million in damages on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated former students, for the difference “between the alleged inflated tuition [plaintiffs] paid because of the allegedly misleading statements and what [plaintiffs] characterize as the ‘true value’ of a NYLS degree.”
New York State Supreme Court Justice Marvin Schweitzer dismissed the proposed class action against New York Law school in March 2012, finding that the alumni were “turn[ing] their disappointment and angst on their law school for not adequately anticipating the possibility of the [economic collapse],” and did not sufficiently state a claim, as the data was not “misleading in a material way for a reasonable consumer acting reasonably.” Despite criticizing New York Law School for being “less than candid” about postgraduate job and salary data, New York’s Appellate Division, First Department upheld the Supreme Court’s dismissal on December 20, 2012.
In New York, a trial judge dismissed a nearly identical case against Albany Law School in early January, and Strauss said he was preparing an appeal in that case as well. The parties are still awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss their case against Brooklyn Law School, which was heard last August. Finally, a motion to dismiss the alumni’s case against the Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law is also pending.
However, similar suits against California schools have proven comparably successful, as suits against California Western School of Law; Golden Gate University School of Law; the University of San Francisco School of Law; Southwestern Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law all survived initial motions to dismiss. Given this inconsistency, the issues raised by the nationwide complaints may not be going away anytime soon.