Illickal v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Illickal v. Roman

236 A.D.2d 247, 653 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 247 (Illickal v. Roman) 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

Illickal v. Roman, 236 A.D.2d 247, 653 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 3, 1995, which dismissed the petition in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ decision to dismiss petitioner from respondent medical school, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[248]*248Since respondents’ decision to dismiss petitioner from its medical school was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, violative of constitutional or statutory rights, or made in bad faith, the decision will not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241). Petitioner was advised of his academic deficiencies and given several opportunities to correct those deficiencies before he was dismissed, and he was given an adequate opportunity to attend and participate in his appeal before the school’s appellate committee (see, e.g., Board of Curators v Horowitz, 435 US 78). We reject petitioner’s due process claims.

Finally, the Supreme Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction with regard to petitioner’s claims concerning respondents’ alleged breach of contract (Education Law § 6224 [4]; see, Ibekweh v Wiredu, 197 AD2d 478, lv denied 83 NY2d 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 3, 1995, which dismissed the petition in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ decision to dismiss petitioner from respondent medical school, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[248]*248Since respondents’ decision to dismiss petitioner from its medical school was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, violative of constitutional or statutory rights, or made in bad faith, the decision will not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241). Petitioner was advised of his academic deficiencies and given several opportunities to correct those deficiencies before he was dismissed, and he was given an adequate opportunity to attend and participate in his appeal before the school’s appellate committee (see, e.g., Board of Curators v Horowitz, 435 US 78). We reject petitioner’s due process claims.

Finally, the Supreme Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction with regard to petitioner’s claims concerning respondents’ alleged breach of contract (Education Law § 6224 [4]; see, Ibekweh v Wiredu, 197 AD2d 478, lv denied 83 NY2d 751). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 247, 653 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illickal-v-roman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack