Last week, Judge Daniels dismissed a putative class action against NYU over its decision to conduct classes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. He concluded the plaintiff could not identify any actual promise or agreement by which NYU stated its classes would be held in person:

Plaintiffs Complaint identifies “marketing and recruitment materials” and a course description as the source of NYU’s promise to provide students with in-person instruction. Specifically, Plaintiff notes that under a heading titled “Networking” the website of NYU’s Shack Institute of Real Estate (“Shack”) listed “Direct engagement with industry, through the nation’s leading conferences, regular speakers, internships, and more.” Plaintiff claims that these statements show NYU touting the benefits of “in-classroom in-person teaching.” . . .

NYU’ s alleged statements do not rise to the level of a specific promise to provide in-person educational services. Plaintiff does not point to any express language promising the “certain specified service” of in-person classes. Moreover, Plaintiff has not pointed to any express language that demonstrates NYU “relinquished its authority” to alter the method of academic instruction.