Matter of Cabonargi v City Univ. of N.Y.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Cabonargi v City Univ. of N.Y. 2013 NY Slip Op 00129 Decided on January 10, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2013
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
8981 108454/10

[*1]In re Stephanie Domenici Cabonargi, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

The City University of New York, et al., Respondents-Appellants.




Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Sudarsana
Srinivasan of counsel), for appellants.
Joel Field, White Plains, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 15, 2011, which granted the petition challenging respondent The City University of New York's determination to dismiss petitioner from the doctoral program in environmental psychology, and directed respondent to reconsider its dismissal of petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

The court, in making its decision, improperly considered an email from petitioner's academic advisor that was never presented at the administrative level (see Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]). Indeed, the email was issued after respondent's final determination. When considering the evidence presented at the administrative level, respondent's determination concerning petitioner's academic qualifications was rational, and was made in good faith and in accordance with its own rules (see Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 408, 413-414 [1980]; see also Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.