Summary
dismissing Ph.D. student's claim of breach of contract because the university following its guidelines in evaluating her academic performance, and thus did not act arbitrarily
Summary of this case from Babiker v. Ross University School of MedicineOpinion
May 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent University's determination that she had failed her final examination of its Doctoral Program, the oral defense of her thesis. She argued that the grading by her dissertation defense committee was arbitrary and capricious in that the committee was improperly composed, having six members rather than the customary five and was not approved by the Dean, and that several members of her committee were biased against her thesis and had unfairly infected the other examiners' opinions.
Judicial review of the determinations of educational institutions regarding the academic performance of their students is limited to the questions of whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or in violation of the Constitution or statute (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 247; see also, Tedeschi v Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 658). Thus, to the extent that petitioner's allegations attack the substantive evaluation of her academic performance, they are beyond judicial review (Lowinger v Touro Coll., 202 A.D.2d 298).
Petitioner fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract, since her allegations that respondents violated certain provisions of the Ph.D. guidelines are contradicted by the guidelines themselves (Silverman v New York Univ. School of Law, 193 A.D.2d 411, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658). Nor do respondents' policy and procedures offend Constitutional notions of due process. Petitioner has had, and availed herself of, ample opportunities to present her case (Lowinger v Touro Coll., supra).
In any event, contrary to petitioner's contention, the petition is untimely since it was commenced more than four months after the University's final and binding determination (Aranoff v Fordham Univ., 171 A.D.2d 434). Petitioner's subsequent correspondence with various University administrators who were powerless to intervene in the matter did not toll or recommence the statutory period (see, supra). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.