Peterman v. New York College of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterman v. New York College of Traditional Chinese Medicine

129 A.D.3d 474, 9 N.Y.S.3d 870

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 9, 2015·No. 150244/12 15355·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*475 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered March 8, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for negligence, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 25, 2013, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the determination on the original motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent in their preparation, provision and grading of a written final examination required for her to obtain a degree upon the completion of all course work. These allegations go to the core of defendants’ substantive evaluation of plaintiff’s academic performance and are therefore beyond judicial review (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241 [1990]). Judicial review of the decisions of academic institutions as to their students’ academic performance is limited, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or in bad faith (id. at 246; Keles v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 74 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 890 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 255 [2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

*475 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered March 8, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for negligence, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 25, 2013, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the determination on the original motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent in their preparation, provision and grading of a written final examination required for her to obtain a degree upon the completion of all course work. These allegations go to the core of defendants’ substantive evaluation of plaintiff’s academic performance and are therefore beyond judicial review (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241 [1990]). Judicial review of the decisions of academic institutions as to their students’ academic performance is limited, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or in bad faith (id. at 246; Keles v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 74 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 890 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 255 [2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Peterman v. New York College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 129 A.D.3d 474, 9 N.Y.S.3d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

129 A.D.3d 474 (Peterman v. New York College of Traditional Chinese Medicine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related