| Keles v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04650 [74 AD3d 435] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Resat Keles, Appellant, v Trustees of Columbia Universityin the City of New York et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Robert D. Kaplan of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 17, 2009,which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion toamend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Although plaintiff styled his claims as based on contract and tort, none pertains to a specificenforceable promise or to negligence causing injury. In essence, plaintiff challenges Columbia'sacademic and administrative standards and decisions. "Strong policy considerations militateagainst the intervention of courts in controversies relating to an educational institution'sjudgment" on core academic policy regarding a student's academic performance andexaminations (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241, 245 [1990]).While decisions of academic institutions are not immune from judicial scrutiny, review shouldbe restricted to special proceedings under CPLR article 78, and only to determine whether thedecision was arbitrary, capricious, irrational or in bad faith (see Maas v Cornell Univ.,94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]; Susan M., 76 NY2d at 246). Courts have repeatedly declined tobecome involved in the evaluation of academic performance, reflecting "the policy that theadministrative decisions of educational institutions involve the exercise of highly specializedprofessional judgment [that] these institutions are, for the most part, better suited to make"(Maas, 94 NY2d at 92; see also Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City ofN.Y., 49 NY2d 408, 413 [1980]).
This complaint is directed at such core academic determinations not cognizable in a breachof contract action: whether plaintiff's GPA was sufficient for him to continue as a teachingassistant, which subjects were properly included in his qualifying exam, whether an examquestion reflected the course work, whether he was correctly determined to have failed aparticular test, and whether the university improperly delayed in awarding him a degree. Thecourt properly declined to convert the action to a special proceeding under article 78, sinceplaintiff's claims would have been barred by the four-month[*2]statute of limitations applicable thereto (see Quintas v Pace Univ., 23 AD3d246 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., McGuire, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter,JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 30865(U).]