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
IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, NEW TRIAL GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
Service Requirements of Business Corporation Law Trumped CPLR
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
CARRIER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF AN EXPEDITED PERMANENCY HEARING PROPERLY DENIED, REQUEST WAS NOT BASED UPON AN EMERGENCY.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF-SELLER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY SHE SOLD WAS SMALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS, DEFENDANT-BUYER WAS NEVER UNDER THAT IMPRESSION; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE DEAL SHOULD BE RESCINDED BASED ON MUTUAL MISTAKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY.
THE MODIFICATION OF THE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER MUST BE IN THE BESTS INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSON; HERE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPFATHER AS LIMITED COGUARDIAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DISABLED PERSON’S BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN ROUTINE AND REGIMEN WAS PARAMOUNT (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 © 2025 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...