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
PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL.
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant
THE SECOND TRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION; THE FIRST TRIAL COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH ELEVEN JURORS AFTER A JUROR WAS DISQUALIFIED DURING DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING THE DEBT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT REQUESTED OR WHERE DEFENDANT AGREES TO FORGO IT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN (SECOND DEPT).
SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

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

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