Alrqiq v. New York University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alrqiq v. New York University

127 A.D.3d 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 917

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 30, 2015·No. 14991 104341/12·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint wherein plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to discrimination on account of his race, religion, and national origin when he was not admitted to the Orthodontics Residency Program at New York University. Although “couched in terms of unlawful discrimination,” the complaint is “a challenge to a university’s academic and administrative decision [ ] and thus is barred by the four- *675 month statute of limitations for a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the appropriate vehicle for such a challenge” (Padiyar v Albert Einstein Coll. of Medicine of Yeshiva Univ., 73 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint wherein plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to discrimination on account of his race, religion, and national origin when he was not admitted to the Orthodontics Residency Program at New York University. Although “couched in terms of unlawful discrimination,” the complaint is “a challenge to a university’s academic and administrative decision [ ] and thus is barred by the four- *675 month statute of limitations for a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the appropriate vehicle for such a challenge” (Padiyar v Albert Einstein Coll. of Medicine of Yeshiva Univ., 73 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Alrqiq v. New York University, 127 A.D.3d 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

127 A.D.3d 674 (Alrqiq v. New York University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related