Abrams v. New School for Social Research

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. New School for Social Research

50 A.D.2d 778, 377 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 778 (Abrams v. New School for Social Research) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 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, 50 A.D.2d 778, 377 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 13, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 1) is granted, and the complaint dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff, a candidate for a Ph.D., after twice failing the oral examinations, requested a third examination, and he was granted this opportunity despite the school policy of a maximum of two oral examinations, which normally would have been conclusive. (Matter of Lesser v Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 18 AD2d 388.) On the third evaluation, the plaintiff’s work was again found unsatisfactory by two social scientists who met with him individually. It is the plaintiff’s contention that [779]*779the conditions for the further evaluation were that the evaluators were to be from outside the university, and that there were to be three individual assessments. The documentary evidence does not support this claim. Concur —Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 13, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 1) is granted, and the complaint dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff, a candidate for a Ph.D., after twice failing the oral examinations, requested a third examination, and he was granted this opportunity despite the school policy of a maximum of two oral examinations, which normally would have been conclusive. (Matter of Lesser v Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 18 AD2d 388.) On the third evaluation, the plaintiff’s work was again found unsatisfactory by two social scientists who met with him individually. It is the plaintiff’s contention that [779]*779the conditions for the further evaluation were that the evaluators were to be from outside the university, and that there were to be three individual assessments. The documentary evidence does not support this claim. Concur —Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 778, 377 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-new-school-for-social-research-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack