Kingston v. Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kingston v. Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education

81 A.D.3d 565, 917 N.Y.S.2d 567

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.3d 565 (Kingston v. Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education) 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

Kingston v. Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, 81 A.D.3d 565, 917 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 16, 2009, dismissing the petition seeking reinstatement as a student, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months after she received notice of the denial of her final administrative appeal. Thus, the proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]).

Were we to consider the merits, we would find, that in light of petitioner’s marginal academic record, respondent’s determina[566]*566tion not to reinstate her was not arbitrary or irrational (see Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 408, 413-414 [1980]). Nor was the fact that she was not given proper instructions for the exam in question a basis for judicial intervention. Indeed, petitioner was given a chance to qualify to take the subject exam again, but she failed the reassessment test. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 16, 2009, dismissing the petition seeking reinstatement as a student, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months after she received notice of the denial of her final administrative appeal. Thus, the proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]).

Were we to consider the merits, we would find, that in light of petitioner’s marginal academic record, respondent’s determina[566]*566tion not to reinstate her was not arbitrary or irrational (see Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 408, 413-414 [1980]). Nor was the fact that she was not given proper instructions for the exam in question a basis for judicial intervention. Indeed, petitioner was given a chance to qualify to take the subject exam again, but she failed the reassessment test. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 565, 917 N.Y.S.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingston-v-sophie-davis-school-of-biomedical-education-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack