Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Ivan DE JESUS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. TEACHERS COLLEGE, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered April 26, 2017, which granted respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 7804(f) to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding brought by petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking an order annulling respondents' determination, dated November 25, 2015, terminating petitioner's enrollment in a Ph.D. program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record establishes that respondents reasonably accommodated the known aspects of petitioner's learning disability by granting him, among other accommodations, double the amount of time (six hours) for a certification exam, with an additional hour for lunch to be used at his discretion. There is no record that respondents were ever apprised, until months after petitioner had twice unsuccessfully sat for the exam, that the resulting length of the test could exacerbate petitioner's disability through fatigue. Petitioner thus failed to meet his burden, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), of showing that the additional accommodations he sought (i.e., to take the exam home or split the six hours over two days) were facially reasonable (see Dean v. University at Buffalo Sch. of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, 804 F.3d 178, 190 [2d Cir.2015] ). Moreover, the record establishes that respondents met their duty, in advance of both administrations of the exam, to engage in an interactive dialogue with petitioner (see McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 99–101 [2d Cir.2009] ).
Petitioner's claim for breach of implied contract also fails, as respondents' determination that petitioner did not pass the exam (and the resulting termination from the program) was rationally based in the record and, as an academic evaluation, is beyond further review (see Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 245–246, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 [1990]; Peterman v. New York Coll. of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 129 A.D.3d 474, 475, 9 N.Y.S.3d 870 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 7137
Decided: September 25, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)