Citation Numbers: 118 Misc. 2d 740
Judges: Kahn
Filed Date: 4/5/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks a judgment against respondent, New York State Board of Law Examiners (Board), in relation to the grading of his February, 1982 examination for admission to the New York State Bar. He specifically asserts that the grading of essay questions numbered (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) was irrational and arbitrary and seeks an order directing the Board to certify that he has passed said examination. Respondent has moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) dismissing the petition upon objections in point of law. Specifically, it asserts that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the proceeding in that the petitioner only seeks judicial review of scores awarded by the Board. In the event the motion to dismiss is denied, respondent reserves its right to answer the petition (CPLR 7804, subd [f]).
The narrow issue to be determined hereby is whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a CPLR article 78 proceeding for the purpose of reviewing the grades given on a Bar admission examination. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its judgment is void
Long ago, the Court of Appeals established the principle that the procedure for admission of lawyers to practice law is a function of the Legislature (Matter of Cooper, 22 NY 67). In this capacity, the Legislature has enacted section 53 of the Judiciary Law which empowers the Court of Appeals to make rules with respect to the admission of attorneys. As an adjunct to this delegation, the Legislature requires the Court of Appeals to appoint three members of the Bar to constitute the State Board of Law Examiners (Judiciary Law, § 56). Further, 22 NYCRR Part 6000 has been adopted by the Court of Appeals as the regulation governing procedures by the Board. Section 6000.4 requires the Board to hold examinations twice each year and sets forth certain areas of law, both substantive and adjective, which the Board must emphasize in the drafting of the semiannual examinations. Section 6000.6 provides for a method by which a failing candidate may review his examination paper. Most significantly, this court can find no authority, either statutory or by rule, which deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine challenges to determinations by the Board.
In support of their motion to dismiss upon objection in point of law, respondent directs the court’s attention to Matter of Davidson v New York State Bd. of Law Examiners - (86 Misc 2d 744, 748) and the language therein which purports to hold that “the grades of a candidate’s examination for admission to the New York State Bar are not
It is axiomatic that great discretion should be afforded respondent in its determinations with respect to the grading of examinations, as it is the administrative agency delegated this responsibility and possess the expertise in the subject matter which it regulates (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Its determinations will not be vacated unless no rational basis exists or their action is arbitrary and capricious. In recognition of this standard of review, the Board’s determination not to administer a bifurcated exam has been upheld (Matter of Mahoney v New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 113 Misc 2d 917). The grading procedures employed in the administering of the 1980 Bar examination were found to not be arbitrary
Finally, early on, the Court of Appeals, in upholding the denial of admission, found that a determination of a lack of good moral character was not reviewable because “[t]he General Term, informed by this report, and on reading the testimony presented, not capriciously or willfully, but on judicial consideration thereof, decided that it could not grant the petition of the applicant. This court may not review that decision.” (Matter of Beggs, 67 NY 120; emphasis supplied.) A close analysis of this language reveals that rather than standing for the proposition that review is precluded because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, exactly the opposite principle of law is established. The court has applied the long-lived standard of arbitrariness and capriciousness, and having found that this standard was not violated, have refused to overturn it. Thus, again, the court has applied a standard of review, thus precluding
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition based on objections in point of law, to wit, that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding, shall be denied. Respondent shall serve its answer within 10 days after service of an order in conformance herewith, with notice of entry.