## Facts

- Susan M. enrolled at New York Law School (NYLS) in fall 1985.
- NYLS rules placed first-year students with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 on academic probation.
- Susan was placed on probation, later raised her cumulative GPA to 2.001, then earned a 1.546 semester GPA, reducing her cumulative GPA to 1.89.
- Under NYLS rules, a student on probation who fails to achieve both a semester and cumulative 2.0 could be dismissed at the discretion of the Academic Status Committee after submitting written and oral statements.
- Susan submitted a written statement attributing her performance to various factors and asserted that two fourth-semester grades (Constitutional Law II “C–” and Corporations “D”) did not accurately reflect her exam performance.
- Susan appeared before the Committee and claimed the chair prevented her from challenging those grades; she addressed other reasons for her academic difficulties.
- The Committee unanimously voted to dismiss her for academic deficiency.
- Susan filed an Article 78 proceeding alleging the dismissal was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on irrational grading/testing and because she was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the contested grades.
- The trial court dismissed the petition; the Appellate Division remanded for inquiry into whether the Corporations grade was a rational exercise of academic discretion.

## Issues

1. Whether an Article 78 court may review and effectively reassess a law school’s exam grading and academic dismissal decision when the student’s allegations challenge pedagogical evaluation rather than bad faith, nonacademic motives, or violation of a specific legal right or rule.
2. Whether limiting the student’s presentation by refusing to entertain challenges to the substantive correctness of particular grades deprived the student of the process promised by the school’s procedures.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the petition in its entirety.
- The court held the petition failed to state a judicially cognizable claim because it attacked the pedagogical evaluation of exam grades, which is for educators, not courts.
- The court rejected the Appellate Division’s remand as an improper intrusion into academic judgment because assessing the “rationality” of a specific grade would require judicial examination of academic standards and exam answers.
- The court concluded NYLS afforded the procedural opportunity contemplated by its rules through written and oral submissions; refusing to litigate the substantive correctness of particular grades was not a procedural violation.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally defer to academic judgments about student performance, including grading and academic dismissal, and will not act as reviewing bodies for pedagogical evaluations.
- Article 78 review in the academic context is narrowly limited; judicial intervention may be available for bad faith, reasons unrelated to academic performance, or violation of a specific legal right or the institution’s established rules.
- Allegations that grades were unfair, inaccurate, or the product of irrational testing/grading methods, without more, do not justify judicial reexamination of exam grading.
- A school satisfies its procedural obligation when it provides the process promised by its rules (e.g., an opportunity to submit written and oral statements), even if it restricts presentations that seek to contest the academic merits of specific grades.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld NYLS’s academic dismissal and dismissed the Article 78 petition, holding that challenges to the substantive correctness of exam grades and related academic judgments are nonjusticiable absent bad faith, nonacademic motives, or violation of a specific legal right or governing rule.


In re Susan M. v. N.Y. Law Sch., 76 N.Y.2d 241 (1990)