21-1727
2d Cir.Mar 10, 2022Background
- Bruce Hay, a Harvard Law professor, was the subject of two 2019 articles by Kera Bolonik in New York Magazine/The Cut describing his fraught relationship with Maria-Pia and Mischa Shuman and alleging deception and abuse by the Shumans.
- Hay initially cooperated with Bolonik, promoted the pieces, assisted in defending them, and helped solicit adaptation bids; he later "had a change of heart" and sought to characterize the Shumans as victims and Bolonik as manipulative.
- Proceeding pro se, Hay filed suit against Bolonik and New York Media alleging breach of an oral contract (promises of professional reporting and Hay's exclusivity agreement) and violations of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); he dropped a prior defamation claim and added new sexual-harassment allegations in the proposed second amended complaint (SAC).
- The district court denied Hay leave to file the SAC as futile; Hay appealed the denial (now represented by counsel).
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the alleged oral contract is unenforceable under New York's Statute of Frauds because Hay’s alleged promise to work exclusively with Bolonik/New York Magazine was indefinite, and the NYCHRL claim failed because Hay, a Massachusetts resident, alleged no impact within New York City.
- The court applied de novo review to the denial of leave to amend and relied on state and federal precedents to resolve the two principal issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of oral contract | Hay alleges an oral promise by Bolonik/New York Media to report professionally in exchange for Hay's exclusivity and cooperation | Agreement is void under New York Statute of Frauds because Hay’s exclusivity promise binds him indefinitely | Held: Claim fails — contract void under Statute of Frauds due to indefinite duration |
| NYCHRL claim | Hay alleges sexual-harassment and discrimination claims under NYCHRL based on Bolonik's conduct | NYCHRL does not apply because Hay is a nonresident and there was no impact within New York City (Hoffman) | Held: Claim dismissed — no cognizable NYCHRL claim because no impact within NYC |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend when amendment is futile)
- McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2000) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 933 N.E.2d 744 (N.Y. 2010) (NYCHRL requires an impact within New York City for nonresidents to invoke city protections)
- Myers v. Waverly Fabrics, 475 N.Y.S.2d 860 (1st Dep’t 1984) (Statute of Frauds applies where a contract imposes indefinite or perpetual restraints)