Avila v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avila v. Safir

259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2312

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1999·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 25, 1997, which, in a proceeding by former police cadets terminated for failure to meet academic standards challenging respondent Police Commissioner’s determination, made after petitioners’ instruction at the police academy had begun, to raise the police academy minimum passing average for quarterly examinations from 70% to 75% granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination to raise the pass rate for quarterly examinations was in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, petitioners having been given notice of the change a month before the first quarterly examination was given (see, 55 RCNY [Appendix A] 4.4.9 [b]). Further, the determination affected all cadets equally and was not otherwise arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law, petitioners having no vested right to any particular pass rate (see, Matter of O’Brien v Lang, 18 AD2d 140, affd 13 NY2d 688, cert denied 375 US 905). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 25, 1997, which, in a proceeding by former police cadets terminated for failure to meet academic standards challenging respondent Police Commissioner’s determination, made after petitioners’ instruction at the police academy had begun, to raise the police academy minimum passing average for quarterly examinations from 70% to 75% granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination to raise the pass rate for quarterly examinations was in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, petitioners having been given notice of the change a month before the first quarterly examination was given (see, 55 RCNY [Appendix A] 4.4.9 [b]). Further, the determination affected all cadets equally and was not otherwise arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law, petitioners having no vested right to any particular pass rate (see, Matter of O’Brien v Lang, 18 AD2d 140, affd 13 NY2d 688, cert denied 375 US 905). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Avila v. Safir, 259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 276 (Avila v. Safir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related