The motion court found that plaintiff's causes of action, while pled as discrimination and contract claims, essentially seek to challenge defendants' academic decisions and testing procedures, and, therefore, should have been brought in an article 78 proceeding. It is undisputed that plaintiff was granted testing accommodations for her disabilities, and defendants' decision to deny her requests for additional accommodations and opportunities to re-take exams constitutes an academic decision, as granting her request would require relaxing defendants' academic standards and policies. Since plaintiff failed to bring the action within the four-month statute of limitations period, her claims are time-barred. For that reason, the motion court declined to convert plaintiff's plenary action into an article 78 proceeding.
Rutkoski v. New York Univ., NY Slip Op 01181 (1st Dep't February 27, 2025)
