Lusardi v. State University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lusardi v. State University

284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 992 (Lusardi v. State 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

Lusardi v. State University, 284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, reinstatement in the PhD program of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at respondent State University of New York at Buffalo. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner contends that the determination to dismiss him from the program after he failed to pass the qualifying examination on two separate occasions was arbitrary and capricious because he was misled by a faculty member concerning whether a certain topic would be covered on the examination. According the appropriate deference to the determination of an educational institution with respect to the academic performance of its student (see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241, 245-246; Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413; Matter of Ratigan v Daemen Coll., 273 AD2d 891), we conclude that the determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Even assuming, arguendo, that the communication from the faculty member was ambiguous, we conclude that respondents demonstrated that the list of subjects to be covered on the examination was posted in three places in the ECE Department and was e-mailed to all students in advance of the examination. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, reinstatement in the PhD program of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at respondent State University of New York at Buffalo. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner contends that the determination to dismiss him from the program after he failed to pass the qualifying examination on two separate occasions was arbitrary and capricious because he was misled by a faculty member concerning whether a certain topic would be covered on the examination. According the appropriate deference to the determination of an educational institution with respect to the academic performance of its student (see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241, 245-246; Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413; Matter of Ratigan v Daemen Coll., 273 AD2d 891), we conclude that the determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Even assuming, arguendo, that the communication from the faculty member was ambiguous, we conclude that respondents demonstrated that the list of subjects to be covered on the examination was posted in three places in the ECE Department and was e-mailed to all students in advance of the examination. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lusardi-v-state-university-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack