NYU Law Pays $4.2M for New Prof’s Condo

Law Schools

Posted Jan 23, 2008, 10:07 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

New York University law school apparently helped lure professor Catherine Sharkey from Columbia University with the purchase of a multimillion-dollar, 4,000-square-foot condo for her in a complex overlooking Central Park.

A foundation associated with NYU paid $4.2 million for an 80 percent interest in the condo at 455 Central Park West, the New York Times reports. Sharkey and her partner bought the remaining 20 percent interest for $1.05 million with the help of a mortgage from the foundation, according to property records examined by the Times.

Sharkey is an expert in product liability law and empirical legal studies. NYU announced last June that it had recruited her .

NYU also owns a $3.5 million condo in Greenwich Village and a $2.35 million condo in Brooklyn. NYU spokesman John Beckman said it usually charges rent to faculty members who use the foundation’s apartments. “New York is attractive to some of the best scholars in the world, but we have to deal with the New York real estate market,” he told the Times.

A hat tip to TaxProf Blog, which posted the story.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by mike hunt - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 41 minutes ago

who said being a prof don’t pay off! Here we have a professor getting NYU to buy her and her “partner” a $4.2M condo, just so she can teach “empirical legal studies” . I can’t imagine whatever that is can be worth that kind of snatch!
Posted by Kenneth R. Besser - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes ago

Your quotation marks around the word “partner” are offensive. There is absolutely no reason to denigrate the status of companionship partners in such a way.
Posted by Don Estes - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 47 minutes ago

Isn’t the bigger question whether we will see “condo wars” as part of the raiding process with the large endowment schools being the winners. It would certainly seem as though one could justify the investment of the school’s endowment into realty that yields not only appreciation but reduces the need for additional salary. Wow..
Posted by Bhish Bhisham - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 46 minutes ago

It’s a $5.25m condo.
Posted by Oren - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 22 minutes ago

I agree with Don. Smart move by NYU. Sounds like they made 2 great investments.
Posted by NYU Law Alum - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 17 minutes ago

Whatever. They will never get another dime of money out of me. Their tuition is absurd. Now I know where it all goes.
Posted by Law Student in Madison - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 33 minutes ago

Ken, while Mike’s use of “partner” may be offensive to you, he has every right to use “ “ around the word. I don’t really care for his blatant attempt to highlight that fact, but I’m certainly not going to deem myself superior just because I disagree with his view. Why do we have to be so PC?
Posted by Mike - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 31 minutes ago

I’ll move to NY and work for free if I get to live for free in a $4.2 million condo, no “partner” included. Maybe they will pay for the Hitler of Iran next.
Posted by Scott - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 32 minutes ago

I am sorry, but no law professor is worth a $4 MM investment. Not one.
Posted by Dana - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 6 minutes ago

Contrary to what Law Student thinks the quotations around the word partner are terribly offensive. It’s not about being PC, it’s about showing common respect for a person’s familial structure. You don’t see anyone putting quotations marks around a reference to a heterosexual person’s spouse unless you want to call into question the legitimacy of that union, e.g. Mr. Hunt and his “wife,” or Law Student’s “children.”

It’s not a matter of being superior. If Prof. Sharkey chooses to identify her significant other as a partner, give it the same weight and respect you would want others to give your own family.
Posted by Ihategreedywindbagpseudo"expert"academia! - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 46 minutes ago

Whew! I’ll sleep better tonight knowing this “expert” is now safe and sound in her new New York City home. Hopefully NYU at least thought to give her a padded 401k too? Hopefully NYU can recoup its money through tuition. I’m sure students would be uniformly thrilled to pay as much as $100,000 a year for tuition as long as such efforts keep up. Nice!
Posted by I heart Dana - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes ago

Dana, this is Pat, your partner. Thanks for speaking up about this issue for us. As we know, we enjoy our privacy as much as the next couple. Even though we’ll have to collect cans this weekend to make up for that pioss poor low paying job you’ve got. Oh, that’s right, our sacrifice for your idealism, working at the Society to Proitect the Rights of Gay Dogs. Well, you’re right! It is good work! Plus, you get to post blog items all day instead of acting with any modicum of efficiency. Just know that you make me so proud! My Dana!
Posted by George Lenard - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 16 minutes ago

Why is nobody complaining about the quotes around “empirical legal studies”?

And while I certainly do so myself, “showing common respect for a person’s familial structure,” when it appears this family may be homosexual, is indeed PC, when it is contrary to the views of so many.

But PC is not necessarily a bad thing, if not overdone to the point of censorship and suppression of the exchange of ideas.

I will defend peoples’ right to make non-PC comments, while agreeing in many cases that PC language serves an important symbolic function and should be encouraged through discussions such as the above.

It is perfectly appropriate to challenge the initial commenter’s apparent disagreement with the use of “partner.” It is a neutral word that has gained widespread acceptance as connoting the fact that, whether you like it or not, many homosexual relationships (and unmarried heterosexual ones) are as committed, loving, and longterm (or more so) as conventional marriages. But we should still be respectful of those who wish to express disapproval.
Posted by Practice what you preech - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 9 minutes ago

Isn’t NYU Law a big public interest school? Seems like there’s a lot more they could be doing with such valuable assets.
Posted by Practice what you PREACH - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 8 minutes ago

Preach*

Oops.
Posted by Brian M. - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 45 minutes ago

George: Should we also accord the same respect to people who, say, disagree with interracial marriages? Would you be just as respectful of someone who put the word “wife” in quotation marks because he or she doesn’t believe a white person and black person should be able to legally marry? If not, can you articulate the difference?

I have no respect for bigotry, whether or not that bigotry has a high level of societal acceptance. By your logic, during the time of segregation we should have been respectful of the views in the South that blacks should be precluded from lunch counters; after all, allowing blacks to sit at those lunch counters was “contrary to the views of so many.”
Posted by Jasper - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 50 minutes ago

It’s tough living in Metropolis. I’m reminded of moving to Cambridge in 1964 to attend law school and having to pay $95 per month for married student housing. An uncle, a farmer from the midWest, heard my complaint and suggested that I just “get a house trailer and live in that”. Guess it’s all in one’s perspective.
Posted by Mark Haesloop - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes ago

This seems to be sticker shock related to real estate. It is probably a good investment for the Foundation (not the University) and over then next 10-15 years should yeild a greater return than a normal University Endowment investment. The life style question for me has nothing to do with “Quotes”, more the need for 4000 sq ft for a couple. I would have preferred a small house on fire island and a comfortable apartment near school for less than $4.4 Mil; but thats just me.
Posted by eag - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes ago

As part of the justification for purchasing the apartment, the person interviewed said, “New York is attractive to some of the best scholars in the world, but we have to deal with the New York real estate market.” Since this professor was lured away from Columbia University to NYU, didn’t she already live in somewhere within the “New York real estate market”? This justification would make more sense if the professor was coming from somewhere having much lower real estate values, and not just switching jobs from one end of Gotham to the other!
Posted by Rowena - 7 months, 1 week, 4 days, 23 hours, 32 minutes ago

Dana might try to remember that non-traditional living situations are often heterosexual as well, and the term “partner” is very appropriate in that situation.
I find that deliberate omission to be insensitive and disrepspectful to my own heterosexual “life partnership” situation, and very offensive.
Posted by Norm W - 7 months, 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 38 minutes ago

As a former New Yorker, I’ve always thought New York was a great place to be from. But, since my daughter is an applicant to Columbia’s LS, this scares the heck out of me.

I guess we now know why it costs the Yankees so much to get ballplayers.
Posted by CTV - 7 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 16 minutes ago

I am amazed at how easily bloggers get side-tracked from the main topic. This went from an article on NYU and its effort to attract law professors to a discussion about homosexual relationships and political correctness.
Posted by james m. hartman - 7 months, 1 week, 2 days, 12 hours, 11 minutes ago

I am a graduate of NYU undergrad (’50) and Columbia Law (53). Rather ancient. Both NYU and Columbia have top law schools. I don’t give a hoot about Prof. anotherSharkey’s irrelevant relationship, partnership, corporate or otherwise. I do give a hoot about the outrageous expense incurred to “bribe” an academic to leave one institution for another institution. This could start a bidding war among schools in otder to acquiure a well reputed academic. I do agree with those who recognize the injustice of this kind of thing to those who must pay the ever escalating tuition putting themselves into inordinate debt in order to attend “top tier” law schools. Frankly, I have lawyer friends from all over the country few of whom attended the white shoe schools and who are some of the best lawyers, particularly those who practice the (dying) art of advocacy. I find it difficult to imagine what Prof. Sharkey can possibly know about products liability that warrants such extravagance, and as far as empirical legal studies goes (whatever that may be) most of us have learned that in thae courtroom- - - a place which i am quite sue is foreign to this very fortunate professor. What will happen to our profession next?
,
Posted by MGrayce - 7 months, 1 week, 16 hours, 37 minutes ago

This is outragious. This kind of excessiveness trickles down to law school tuition costs then to the need for excessively high associate salaries.
Posted by Scott - 7 months, 1 week, 14 hours, 53 minutes ago

Shut up. Effin’ geeze you guys. NYU owns the condo. If the prof moves on or they don’t like her, they can use it recruit someone else. That’s how NYU recruits a lot of profs. It’s part of what they have to offer. “Could start a bidding war?” what do you think schools have been doing? All schools compete for professors. Hell, all employers in any profession compete for highly qualified and respected individuals. Why would academics be any different? If you think it is or ever has been, you are kidding yourself.

“High associates salaries?” High associate salaries have a lot more to do with the hellish hours associates work, which has a lot more to do with the litigation crazed society the US has become. You would pay a substantially amount to get a Ph D in Philosophy from NYU and no one is going to pay you some ludicrous amount because your tuition was expensive.

And lay off Mike for the “partner” remark. I can virtually guarantee you, he read that as meaning partner in the traditional sense of working together and thought it was part of the justification for buying the condo. It’s an honest mistake, and his making it is pretty obvious if you aren’t so ready jump all over people. The word “partner” has a well established and very different meaning, and people who aren’t accustomed to hearing it used to indicate the status of a gay personal relationship misunderstand it all the time in speech and even more often in writing.
Posted by Scott (Continued) - 7 months, 1 week, 14 hours, 47 minutes ago

Mike was using the quotation marks to imply that this being someone’s partner in the traditional sense was absurd, which it would be if that is what the article meant.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Schools