You are here: / / Criteria for Court Review of Disciplinary Actions Taken by a Private S...

Criteria for Court Review of Disciplinary Actions Taken by a Private School

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking reinstatement of a student who had been expelled from a private school (Adelphi) for academic dishonesty.  The Second Department explained the disciplinary procedures required of a private school and the courts’ power to review the disciplinary actions taken by a private school:

“[P]rivate schools are afforded broad discretion in conducting their programs, including decisions involving the discipline, suspension and expulsion of their students” … . Judicial review of the actions of a private school in disciplinary matters is limited to a determination as to whether the school acted arbitrarily and capriciously or whether it substantially complied with its own rules and regulations … .

Here, Adelphi substantially complied with its own rules and regulations as set forth in its Code of Ethics in suspending and expelling the infant for acts of academic dishonesty. Adelphi was not required to hold hearings before its Disciplinary Committee before imposing discipline, and the petitioner’s further challenges to the procedures taken are likewise without merit. Further, the determinations that the infant had committed acts of academic dishonesty which warranted suspension and expulsion were not arbitrary and capricious. “When a private school expels a student based on facts within its knowledge that justify the exercise of discretion’, then a court may not review this decision and substitute its own judgment” … . Matter of Khaykin v Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn, 2015 NY Slip Op 00540, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

You might also like
THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
LAND HELD BY A MUNICIPALITY IN A PROPRIETARY CAPACITY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
Although Arbitrator in Statutorily-Required Arbitration Proceeding Properly Found Teacher Engaged in Misconduct, Teacher’s Actions Were Protected by First Amendment
PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Twenty-Day Time-Limit for Making an Application to Stay Arbitration Starts When... Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s...