You are here: / / CORNELL DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN ITS STUDENT CODE TO REFUSE...

CORNELL DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN ITS STUDENT CODE TO REFUSE ADMISSION TO PETITIONER WHO OMITTED FROM HIS APPLICATION THE FACT HE HAD BEEN EXPELLED FROM ANOTHER COLLEGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent Cornell did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it refused to enroll petitioner because petitioner did not reveal he had been expelled from Kansas State for violations of its code of conduct. Petitioner argued Cornell did not follow the provisions in its Code when it refused to enroll petitioner. But the Third Department held the Code applied only to “students” and not to those who were filling out an application for admission:

In reviewing a determination rendered by a private educational institution where no hearing is required, a court will not disturb it “unless a school acts arbitrarily and not in the exercise of its honest discretion, it fails to abide by its own rules or imposes a penalty so excessive that it shocks one’s sense of fairness” … . Petitioner argues that respondent was obliged to follow the provisions of the Code, which establishes standards of conduct for, as is relevant here, its students. A student is defined under the Code as a person “currently registered” with respondent in one of its divisions or as a special student, “currently enrolled in or taking classes” with respondent, “currently using” respondent’s facilities or property for academic purposes or “currently on leave of absence or under suspension from being a student.” Inasmuch as petitioner was none of those things when he misrepresented his academic background on an application for admission to respondent, neither the Code nor the procedures created by it were applicable to his misconduct, and Supreme Court erred in concluding that they were … . Matter of Kamila v Cornell Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op 02150, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO INVALIDATE A CERTIFICATE OF NOMINATION RAN OUT ON JULY 12; THE FACT THAT THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDERED SERVICE BY JULY 19 DID NOT EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEYOND JULY 12 (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT).
THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY DECLARED A RENTAL-UNIT SHORTAGE-EMERGENCY AND PROPERLY IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON RENT INCREASES DURING THE EMERGENCY PERIOD (THIRD DEPT).
OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK AND RAILING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL INTO A GORGE, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (THIRD 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

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE... OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL...