Opinion
04-23-2024
In the Matter of W.O., Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
W.O., appellant pro se. Swapna Maruri, New York, for respondents.
W.O., appellant pro se.
Swapna Maruri, New York, for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Kennedy, Higgitt, O’Neill Levy, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered January 31, 2023, granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition to vacate respondents’ determination of academic dismissal and to reinstate petitioner to its occupational therapy master’s program (OT program), denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
[1, 2] Respondents’ dismissal of petitioner from its OT program based on her failure to meet its academic requirements was not arbitrary and capricious (see Keles v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 74 A.D.3d 435, 435, 903 N.Y.S.2d 18 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 890, 924 N.Y.S.2d 319, 948 N.E.2d 925 [2011], cert denied 565 U.S. 884, 132 S.Ct. 255, 181 L.Ed.2d 148 [2011]; see also CPLR 7803[3]). To the extent petitioner’s dismissal was based on her final grade in a required course, "challenges to a particular grade or academic determination relating to a substantive evaluation of a student’s academic capabilities are beyond the scope of judicial review" (Matter of De Jong v. Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 27 A.D.3d 398, 398, 812 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1st Dept. 2006]). Moreover, while petitioner clearly faced challenges due to her multiple health issues and learning disability, she acknowledges that she was provided accommodations, including more time to take the exam and a small, proctored room (see Keefe v. New York Law School, 71 A.D.3d 569, 571, 897 N.Y.S.2d 94 [1st Dept. 2010]).
[3] Petitioner’s due process claims are also unavailing, as she received multiple layers of administrative review and opportunities to submit evidence in support of her appeals (see Matter of Bondalapati v. Columbia Univ., 170 A.D.3d 489, 490, 95 N.Y.S.3d 198 [1st Dept. 2019]). A private university such as respondent New York University is not required to provide the "full panoply" of due process rights, such as a hearing, a right to representation, and access to document discovery that included other students’ academic records (see id.).
Petitioner’s request to have the record in this case sealed is denied (see Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 348, 905 N.Y.S.2d 575 [1st Dept. 2010]).