“When, as here, action taken against a student is predicated upon grounds unrelated to academic achievement, the operative standard requires that the educational institution proceed in accordance with its own rules and guidelines” (Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1052, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754). In situations involving nonacademic discipline, when a university “acts within its jurisdiction, not arbitrarily but in the exercise of an honest discretion based on facts within its knowledge that justify the exercise of discretion, a court may not review the exercise of its discretion” (Matter of Carr v. St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 A.D.2d 632, 634, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410,affd.12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18;see Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 398, 639 N.Y.S.2d 977, 663 N.E.2d 289;Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d at 1052, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754;Matter of Coleman v. Hackley School, 251 A.D.2d 328, 328–329, 673 N.Y.S.2d 732;Matter of Galiani v. Hofstra Univ., 118 A.D.2d 572, 572, 499 N.Y.S.2d 182).

In a judgment entered March 26, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Judicial review of determinations made by educational institutions as to the academic performance of their students is limited to the question of whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to Constitution or statute (see Matter of Zanelli v. Rich, 127 A.D.3d 774, 775, 8 N.Y.S.3d 217 ; Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; Matter of Gilbert v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook, 73 A.D.3d 774, 774, 899 N.Y.S.2d 853 ). "Strong policy considerations militate against the intervention of courts in controversies relating to an educational institution's judgment of a student's academic performance" (Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 245, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 ; see Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d at 1052, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; Matter of Cunningham v. Pace Univ., 288 A.D.2d 218, 732 N.Y.S.2d 573 ). Here, the petitioner was dismissed from NYCOM for failing to pass the COMLEX Level II CE examination prior to the completion of her academic leave of absence, as required by NYCOM's policy.

“An implied contract exists between [a school] and its students such that if a student complies with the terms prescribed by [the school], he or she will obtain the degree which he or she sought” (Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1054, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754; see Vought v. Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ., 127 A.D.2d 654, 511 N.Y.S.2d 880). “ ‘The essence of the implied contract is that an academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students' ”

The court is "not required to accept at face value every conclusory, patently unsupportable assertion of fact found in the complaint" and can "consider documentary evidence proved or conceded to be authentic" (West 64th Street, LLC v Axis U.S. Ins., 63 AD3d 471, 471 [1st Dept 2009], quoting Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 318 [1st Dept 1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Judicial review of determinations made by educational institutions as to the academic performance of their students is limited to the question of whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to Constitution or statute (see Matter of Zanelli v Rich, 127 AD3d 774, 775, 8 NYS3d 217 [2015]; Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d 1049, 1051, 950 NYS2d 754 [2012]; Matter of Gilbert v State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook, 73 AD3d 774, 774, 899 NYS2d 853 [2010]). "Strong policy considerations militate against the intervention of courts in controversies relating to an educational institution's judgment of a student's academic performance" (Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241, 245, 556 NE2d 1104, 557 NYS2d 297 [1990]; see Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d at 1052; Matter of Cunningham v Pace Univ., 288 AD2d 218, 732 NYS2d 573 [2001]).

"When, as here, action taken against a student is predicated upon grounds unrelated to academic achievement, the operative standard requires that the educational institution proceed in accordance with its own rules and guidelines" ( Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d 1049, 1052 [2012]). In situations involving nonacademic discipline, when a university "acts within its jurisdiction, not arbitrarily but in the exercise of an honest discretion based on facts within its knowledge that justify the exercise of discretion, a court may not review the exercise of its discretion" (Matter of Carr v St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 AD2d 632, 634 [1962], affd. 12 NY2d 802 [1962]; see Dalton v Educational Testing Serv., 87 NY2d 384, 398 [1995]; Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 AD3d at 1052; Matter of Coleman v Hackley School, 251 AD2d 328, 328-329 [1980]; Matter of Galiani v Hofstra Univ., 118 AD2d 572, 572 [1986]).

gency determination and their proper avenue for judicial relief lies in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 103[c]; Matter of Adirondack Med. Center-Uihlein v Daines, 119 A.D.3d 1175, 1176; Matter of Huntley v Evans, 77 A.D.3d 945, 946; Town of Fishkill v Royal Dutchess Properties, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 511, 511-512). Further, "although the respondents did not file an answer, where, as here, 'it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result,' the court can, upon a respondent's motion to dismiss, decide the petition on the merits" (Matter of Arash Real Estate & Mgt. Co. v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 148 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, quoting Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 N.Y.2d 100, 102; see Matter of Universal Metal & Ore, Inc. v Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 145 A.D.3d 46, 59; Matter of Rizvi v New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1051).

Further, "although the respondents did not file an answer, where, as here, ‘it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result,’ the court can, upon a respondent's motion to dismiss, decide the petition on the merits" ( Matter of Arash Real Estate & Mgt. Co. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 148 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 52 N.Y.S.3d 102, quoting Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 N.Y.2d 100, 102, 480 N.Y.S.2d 190, 469 N.E.2d 511 ; seeMatter of Universal Metal & Ore, Inc. v. Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 145 A.D.3d 46, 59, 37 N.Y.S.3d 571 ; Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ). A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Marcus v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Wesley Hills, 199 A.D.3d 1007, 1009, 154 N.Y.S.3d 822 ; Matter of Saint James Antiochian Orthodox Church v. Town of Hyde Park Planning Bd., 132 A.D.3d 687, 688, 17 N.Y.S.3d 481 ; Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of NYIT's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the petition as time-barred. While the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the petition, we may do so where, as here, "the dispositive facts were undisputed and the arguments of the parties with respect to the merits of the proceeding were fully set forth in the record before the Supreme Court" ( Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; seeMatter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County , 63 N.Y.2d 100, 101–102, 480 N.Y.S.2d 190, 469 N.E.2d 511 ). "Where, as here, the [NYSDHR] renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis" ( Matter of Sahni v. Foster , 145 A.D.3d 733, 734, 42 N.Y.S.3d 343 ).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court did not err in denying the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR 5104 to hold New York College of Osteopathic Medicine of New York Institute of Technology (hereinafter NYCOM) in contempt of court for failure to comply with the terms of a decision and order of this Court in his prior appeal (seeMatter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech. , 98 A.D.3d 1049, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ). The petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that NYCOM violated a clear and unequivocal mandate set forth in this Court's decision and order (seeMatter of Wright v. McIntosh , 125 A.D.3d 679, 3 N.Y.S.3d 120 ; DeMaio v. Capozello , 114 A.D.3d 899, 981 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc. , 50 A.D.3d 1073, 857 N.Y.S.2d 229 ).

In the judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Unlike disciplinary measures taken against a student, institutional assessments of a student's academic performance, whether in the form of particular grades received or measures taken because a student has been judged to be scholastically deficient, necessarily involve academic determinations requiring the special expertise of educators (see Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 245, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 ; Matter of Rizvi v. New York Coll. of Osteopathic Medicine of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 98 A.D.3d 1049, 1052, 950 N.Y.S.2d 754 ). Thus, to preserve the integrity of the credentials conferred by educational institutions, courts have long been reluctant to intervene in controversies involving purely academic determinations (see Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d at 245–246, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 ; Matter of Zanelli v. Rich, 127 A.D.3d 774, 775, 8 N.Y.S.3d 217 ). Although determinations made by educational institutions as to the academic performance of their students are not completely beyond the scope of judicial review, that review is limited to the question of whether the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to constitution or statute (see Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d at 246, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 ; Matter of Gilbert v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook, 73 A.D.3d 774, 774, 899 N.Y.S.2d 853 ; Matter of Sage v. CUNY Law School, 208 A.D.2d 751, 751–752, 617 N.Y.S.2d 825 ).