Mirza v. College of Mount St. Vincent
2025 NY Slip Op 50342(U)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.2025Background
- Rohma Mirza, a student in the Physician Assistant (PA) Program at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, was expelled after signing a recommendation letter as "PA-C" (Physician Assistant — Certified), which violated program rules specifying "PA-S" (student) must be used.
- The College's disciplinary process included a committee review (PCRC), a subsequent Academic Progress Committee (APC) hearing (Mirza did not attend), an appeal to the PA Program Director, and a final appeal to the Provost—all upholding her dismissal.
- Mirza argued that her use of "PA-C" was inadvertent and promptly remedied, but faculty concluded the error and her response demonstrated a lack of professionalism required in the profession.
- Mirza filed a hybrid proceeding seeking reinstatement and damages, alleging breach of contract, civil rights violations, defamation, and arbitrary and capricious action under Article 78.
- The court addressed whether the College's actions were arbitrary/capricious, violated due process or contract, or were discriminatory, as well as the proper standard for judicial review of private university disciplinary decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the expulsion arbitrary and capricious? | College ignored her explanation; response excessive | Disciplinary process was thorough and justified | Not arbitrary/capricious; decision affirmed |
| Was due process (contractual or constitutional) violated? | Not informed of charges, denied meaningful hearing | All disciplinary policies/procedures followed | Due process provided under College policy |
| Was the sanction of expulsion excessive? | Expulsion disproportionate to a single, remedied mistake | Expulsion was established consequence for conduct | Not shocking to fairness; sanction affirmed |
| Do other claims (contract, civil rights, tort) survive independently of Article 78? | College's actions breached contract, were discriminatory | Claims are subsumed under Article 78 and unsupported | All other claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87 (restrictions on judicial review of private college decisions)
- Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 (standard for "arbitrary and capricious" and when a sanction is “shocking to one’s sense of fairness”)
- Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 49 N.Y.2d 652 (requirement that colleges substantially adhere to their own published disciplinary procedures)
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176 (supporting the arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Matter of Aryeh v. St. John's Univ., 154 A.D.3d 747 (Article 78 as exclusive remedy for private college discipline)