You are here: / / CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE...

CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, upholding the expulsion of a student from a private college (Pratt Institute) based upon allegations of sexual harassment, explained the relevant court-review criteria:

​

“[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, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, Pratt Institute informed him of the specific allegations against him, and substantially complied with its sexual harassment policy … . Matter of Ibe v Pratt Inst., 2017 NY Slip Op 04443, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED)/COLLEGES (CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED)

You might also like
Adult Care Facility, in Which Residents Have a High Level of Autonomy, Can Not Be Held Liable for Assault by One Resident Upon Another
JUDGE EXHIBITED BIAS AGAINST MOTHER AND INTERFERED EXCESSIVELY IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; NEW HEARING ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
A “HIGH COST LOAN” AS DEFINED BY THE BANKING LAW IS A DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LETTER TO THE COURT REQUESTING SANCTIONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY DEFENDANTS OF THEIR ALLEGED FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT; MONETARY SANCTIONS REVERSED; MATTER REMITTED FOR PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A MOTION TO WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).
SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT IS UNCONSCIONABLE,...