Ellias v. Trustees of Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellias v. Trustees of Columbia University

248 A.D.2d 273, 670 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 273 (Ellias v. Trustees of Columbia 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

Ellias v. Trustees of Columbia University, 248 A.D.2d 273, 670 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application challenging respondent university’s determination failing petitioner’s oral defense of her doctoral dissertation, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Most of petitioner’s allegations that respondent violated its own guidelines governing doctoral dissertations are actually attacks on respondent’s substantive evaluation of petitioner’s academic performance, and, as such, are beyond judicial review (see, Benson v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 215 AD2d 255, Iv denied 87 NY2d 808). Otherwise, the record shows that the guidelines were followed. At most, the rule requiring that a candidate’s sponsor and second reader signify that a thesis is acceptable and warrants a defense was generously construed in petitioner’s favor so as to avoid her predefense termination from the program on the possibility that, given an opportunity to formally defend her thesis, she might show its worth and vindicate her extended matriculation. We have reviewed petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application challenging respondent university’s determination failing petitioner’s oral defense of her doctoral dissertation, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Most of petitioner’s allegations that respondent violated its own guidelines governing doctoral dissertations are actually attacks on respondent’s substantive evaluation of petitioner’s academic performance, and, as such, are beyond judicial review (see, Benson v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 215 AD2d 255, Iv denied 87 NY2d 808). Otherwise, the record shows that the guidelines were followed. At most, the rule requiring that a candidate’s sponsor and second reader signify that a thesis is acceptable and warrants a defense was generously construed in petitioner’s favor so as to avoid her predefense termination from the program on the possibility that, given an opportunity to formally defend her thesis, she might show its worth and vindicate her extended matriculation. We have reviewed petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 273, 670 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellias-v-trustees-of-columbia-university-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack