LaGuardia Cmty. Coll. Paramedic Class 23 Student John Ciafone v. City of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 01784

LaGuardia Community College Paramedic Class 23 Student John Ciafone, appellant, v. City of New York, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

No. 2020-03598, Index No. 707128/19

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

April 5, 2023

John J. Ciafone, named herein as LaGuardia Community College Paramedic Class 23 Student John Ciafone, Astoria, NY appellant pro se.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jeremy W Shweder and Barbara Graves-Poller of counsel), for respondents.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, in effect, seeking review of an academic determination made by an educational institution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Esposito, J.), entered March 3, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendants City of New York, LaGuardia Community College, and CUNY pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied, as academic that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for leave to amend the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying, as academic, that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for leave to amend the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross-motion on the merits; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendants City of New York, LaGuardia Community College, and CUNY.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York, LaGuardia Community College, and CUNY (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The plaintiff, in effect, sought review of a determination not to permit him to graduate from a paramedic program at LaGuardia Community College, among other things. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to amend the complaint. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted the defendants' motion and denied, as academic, that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be accorded a liberal construction, the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every favorable inference (see Rigwan v Neus, 205 A.D.3d 1062, 1063). The "sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275).

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Even according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff failed to allege facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d at 275; Rigwan v Neus, 205 A.D.3d at 1063).

Moreover to the extent that the plaintiff is seeking judicial review of an academic determination not to permit him to...