Opinion
2021-06037 Index 150796/20
11-04-2021
In the Matter of Anusar Farooqui, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Columbia University et al., Respondents-Respondents. Appeal No. 14536 Case No. 2021-00905
Ballon Stoll P.C., New York (Marshall B. Bellovin of counsel), for appellant. Jackson Lewis P.C., White Plains (Susan D. Friedfel of counsel), for respondents.
Ballon Stoll P.C., New York (Marshall B. Bellovin of counsel), for appellant.
Jackson Lewis P.C., White Plains (Susan D. Friedfel of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Shulman, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2020, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated December 16, 2020, which dismissed petitioner from respondents' PhD program, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondents' decision to dismiss petitioner from the PhD program was not arbitrary and capricious, nor did they fail to substantially adhere to their own rules and regulations in reaching their determination (see Kickertz v New York Univ., 110 A.D.3d 268, 272 [1st Dept 2013], Krysty v State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, 39 A.D.3d 1220, 1220 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 805 [2007]). Respondents rationally concluded that petitioner, who was dismissed from the program primarily because of his teaching performance deficiencies (which rendered him unable to meet the program's requirements), failed to maintain both good academic and administrative standing in the program.
Petitioner fails to state a claim for breach of contract, since the dispute arises out of respondents' subjective professional judgment regarding petitioner's teaching performance (see Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 N.Y.2d 408, 413 [1980]; Keles v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 74 A.D.3d 435, 435-436 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 890 [2011], cert denied 565 U.S. 884 [2011]). In any event, petitioner has not identified any specific promise, either academic or administrative, that respondents breached when they dismissed him in a manner consistent with established university policy (see Keefe v New York Law Sch., 71 A.D.3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2010]).