Home/New York Court of Appeals/McIntosh v. Borough of Manhattan Community College

McIntosh v. Borough of Manhattan Community College

433 N.E.2d 1274, 55 N.Y.2d 913, 449 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3107
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 9, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 433 N.E.2d 1274 (McIntosh v. Borough of Manhattan Community College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McIntosh v. Borough of Manhattan Community College, 433 N.E.2d 1274, 55 N.Y.2d 913, 449 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3107 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

[915]*915OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree that the issue considered by the Appellate Division is governed by Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. (49 NY2d 408; see, also, Matter of Hymes v Schechter, 6 NY2d 352) and that the college did not act capriciously or arbitrarily in refusing to round off petitioner’s 69.713 grade to a passing grade of 70.00.

Petitioner raised additional points at Special Term concerning violation of her right to due process and the correctness of her answers to two examination questions which her professor marked incorrect. She argues that in reversing Special Term the Appellate Division should have remanded for consideration of those additional points. We disagree, concluding that the record does not demonstrate any infringement of petitioner’s right to due process (Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v Horowitz, 435 US 78, 89-90; Matter of Sofair v State Univ. of N. Y. Upstate Med. Center Coll. of Medicine, 44 NY2d 475; see Tedeschi v Wagner Coll., 49 NY2d 652) and that an examination question which requires a student to choose between two possible correct answers as a means of testing the student’s judgment is, if subject to judicial review at all, neither arbitrary nor capricious (Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v Horowitz, 435 US 78, 91-92, supra; Matter of Gray v Niesley, 35 Misc 2d 837, 839).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Jones taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of A.Z. v. City Univ. of N.Y., Hunter Coll.
2021 NY Slip Op 05070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Guida v. New York City Department of Personnel
238 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Dalton v. Educational Testing Service
663 N.E.2d 289 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Susan M. v. New York Law School
556 N.E.2d 1104 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Duffy v. Holt-Harris
159 A.D.2d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Lachica v. State
139 Misc. 2d 772 (New York State Court of Claims, 1988)
Board of Education of Northport-East v. Ambach
90 A.D.2d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Oback v. Nadel
439 N.E.2d 863 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
433 N.E.2d 1274, 55 N.Y.2d 913, 449 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-borough-of-manhattan-community-college-ny-1982.