Abrams v. New School for Social Research

New York Court of Appeals

Abrams v. New School for Social Research

359 N.E.2d 329, 40 N.Y.2d 961, 390 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3167

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 359 N.E.2d 329 (Abrams v. New School for Social Research) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. New School for Social Research, 359 N.E.2d 329, 40 N.Y.2d 961, 390 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3167 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The institution had agreed to permit plaintiff, a doctoral candidate in psychology who had failed two oral examinations, to take a third oral examination, provided that two of three social psychologists favorably reviewed his dissertation proposal. Plaintiff voluntarily submitted to separate interviews with two evaluators and both rejected his proposal after an independent review. Hence, plaintiff was required to withdraw from the institution. The record establishes that the procedures employed to effectuate this additional review procedure were in accordance with the institution’s agreement with the plaintiff. The resolution of this case does not turn on any disputed issues of fact and the Appellate Division properly directed the entry of a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The institution had agreed to permit plaintiff, a doctoral candidate in psychology who had failed two oral examinations, to take a third oral examination, provided that two of three social psychologists favorably reviewed his dissertation proposal. Plaintiff voluntarily submitted to separate interviews with two evaluators and both rejected his proposal after an independent review. Hence, plaintiff was required to withdraw from the institution. The record establishes that the procedures employed to effectuate this additional review procedure were in accordance with the institution’s agreement with the plaintiff. The resolution of this case does not turn on any disputed issues of fact and the Appellate Division properly directed the entry of a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 N.E.2d 329, 40 N.Y.2d 961, 390 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-new-school-for-social-research-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack