You are here: / / LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO...

LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a law student’s petition to contest failing grades issued after the student missed exams was properly dismissed. The student had not complied with the school’s rules with respect to missing exams because of illness:

Unlike disciplinary measures taken against a student, institutional assessments of a student’s academic performance, whether in the form of particular grades received or measures taken because a student has been judged to be scholastically deficient, necessarily involve academic determinations requiring the special expertise of educators… . Thus, to preserve the integrity of the credentials conferred by educational institutions, courts have long been reluctant to intervene in controversies involving purely academic determinations … . Although determinations made by educational institutions as to the academic performance of their students are not completely beyond the scope of judicial review, that review is limited to the question of whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to constitution or statute … .

Here, the petitioner did not submit any evidence establishing that he complied with BLS’s policy for missing an exam due to illness. Pursuant to BLS’s [Brooklyn Law School’s] policy, since the petitioner failed to take two final exams, failed to promptly notify the Registrar that he was unable to take those exams due to illness, and failed to submit medical documentation of his illness necessary to schedule make-up exams, he received a failing grade in each course. BLS’s determination to let the petitioner’s failing grades stand and to refuse to allow him to withdraw from those courses so as to avoid the failing grades was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to constitution or statute … . Matter of Daniel v Brooklyn Law Sch., 2017 NY Slip Op 06181, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT))/LAW SCHOOL (LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT))/GRADES (LAW SCHOOL, LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT ON THE EVE OF TRIAL CHANGED THE THEORY OF PROSECUTION FROM ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON TO CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR SENTENCING; HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT SENTENCING WAS THEREFORE VIOLATED, REQUIRING REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR FACTUAL... RELIGIOUS LIFESTYLE RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON MOTHER VIOLATED HER CONSTITUTIONAL...