Cunningham v. Pace University

288 A.D.2d 218, 732 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10533
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 218 (Cunningham v. Pace University) 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
Cunningham v. Pace University, 288 A.D.2d 218, 732 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Pace University, dated March 10, 1999, which dismissed the petitioner for academic deficiency, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 14, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“Strong policy considerations militate against the intervention of courts in controversies relating to an educational institution’s judgment of a student’s academic performance” <[Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241, 245). Although determinations of academic performance are not completely beyond judicial review, such review is limited to the question of whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to the Constitution or a statute (see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, supra, at 246; Matter of Ratigan v Daemen Coll., 273 AD2d 891; Auguste v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr., 260 AD2d 589; Matter of Williams v State Univ. of N. Y. — Health Science Ctr., 251 AD2d 508). We find no evidence to establish that the respondent’s determination to dismiss the petitioner was arbitrary or capricious, irrational, or made in bad faith or contrary to the Constitution or a statute.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kharouba v. New York Coll. of Ostheopatic Medicine ("NYCOM") of N.Y. Inst. of Tech. ("NYIT")
137 A.D.3d 1277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rizvi v. New York College of Osteopathic Medicine of New York Institute of Technology
98 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 218, 732 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-pace-university-nyappdiv-2001.