Contractual Agreements Between Students and Colleges

Accounting Student Graduation Requirements Dispute Accounting Graduation Requirements A college has the right to from time to time change its curriculum to include reasonable requirments Eurycleia Partners, LLP v Seward Kissell, LLP, 12 NY3d 553 (2009). However, the bulletins, regulations, and written guidelines created by a college establish an agreement between the parties Tedeschi, 49 NY2d at 660. There was an implied contract between the parties, which would include the need to communicate changes regarding the implied contract to either of the parties.

The student, Marcia Mapp, would not, of her own accord, be aware of any changes to the student handbook, nor would she necessarily be aware that a new handbook was produced during the time she was not enrolled in accounting classes as no notices were sent to that effect (Leonard Eidlisz, Appellant, v. New York University et al., Respondents. 2009 NY Slip Op 02826 [61 AD3d 473].

Although the secretary was new to the college, she could be expected to verify with other staff that the information she was letting the student photocopy was accurate, or the secretary could have cautioned the student to seek verification on her own. The length of employment of a staff person may not be sufficient to release the college of its responsibility for the actions of that agent.

The question is whether the parties satisfied their respective obligations under such implied agreement, and "there exists an implied contract between the institution and its students such that if the student complies with the terms prescribed by the institution, he will obtain the degree which he sought" (Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ. Of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 408, 414 [1980]. In Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ.

(49 NY2d 408) the court held that matters involving academic standards are generally applied according to the subjective judgment of professional educators. The issue is whether the institution has acted in good faith or whether its action was arbitrary or irrational (Flomenbaum v New York University, 71 AD3d 80, 86 (1st Dep't 2009), aff'd 14 NY3d 901 (2010), Part 2 Case Name: Kickeritz v N.Y. University 99 A.D.

3rd 502 Procedural History: Dissenting opinion held that CPLR 7804 (f) requires opportunity for a respondent to file an answer (see Matter of Bethelite Community Church, Great Tomorrows Elementary School v Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y., 8 NY3d 1001 [2007]; Matter of Nassau [*10]BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. Of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 103 [1984]). The Court of Appeals had recognized an exception to the CPLR 7804 (f) mandate, where "the facts are so.