Morales v. New York University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. New York University

83 A.D.2d 811, 442 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15170

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 811 (Morales v. New York 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

Morales v. New York University, 83 A.D.2d 811, 442 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Grossman, J.), entered February 10, 1981, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While public policy considerations dictate that courts should be wary of intervening in controversies involving academic standards, the decisions of educators are not “completely immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413.) Where an academic institution exercises its discretion arbitrarily or irrationally, judicial intervention is warranted. (See, e.g., Matter of Sofair v State Univ. of N. Y. Upstate Med. Center Coll, of Medicine, 54 AD2d 287, 290, revd on other grounds 44 NY2d 475.) “[A]n academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., supra, at p 414.) From our review of the record we find that an issue of fact is presented as to whether defendant acted in good faith in denying plaintiff’s [812]*812request for transfer credits toward fulfilling the requirements for a doctorate degree. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro and Bloom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Grossman, J.), entered February 10, 1981, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While public policy considerations dictate that courts should be wary of intervening in controversies involving academic standards, the decisions of educators are not “completely immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413.) Where an academic institution exercises its discretion arbitrarily or irrationally, judicial intervention is warranted. (See, e.g., Matter of Sofair v State Univ. of N. Y. Upstate Med. Center Coll, of Medicine, 54 AD2d 287, 290, revd on other grounds 44 NY2d 475.) “[A]n academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., supra, at p 414.) From our review of the record we find that an issue of fact is presented as to whether defendant acted in good faith in denying plaintiff’s [812]*812request for transfer credits toward fulfilling the requirements for a doctorate degree. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 811, 442 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-new-york-university-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack