
    A. Juan J. Morales, Respondent, v New York University et al., Appellants.
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Grossman, J.), entered February 10, 1981, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While public policy considerations dictate that courts should be wary of intervening in controversies involving academic standards, the decisions of educators are not “completely immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413.) Where an academic institution exercises its discretion arbitrarily or irrationally, judicial intervention is warranted. (See, e.g., Matter of Sofair v State Univ. of N. Y. Upstate Med. Center Coll, of Medicine, 54 AD2d 287, 290, revd on other grounds 44 NY2d 475.) “[A]n academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students.” (Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., supra, at p 414.) From our review of the record we find that an issue of fact is presented as to whether defendant acted in good faith in denying plaintiff’s request for transfer credits toward fulfilling the requirements for a doctorate degree. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro and Bloom, JJ.

Silverman, J., dissents in a memorandum as follows:

I would reverse the order appealed from and grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Clearly it is no part of the business of a court to review a determination by a university whether to grant advanced academic credit toward a graduate degree for work done at a foreign military academy. (See Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408.) Nor is it any part of the business of a court to pass on the qualifications of the. university’s representative who decides this question. These matters involve academic standards generally resting upon the subjective judgment of the university’s authorities into which the court should not intrude (Tedeschi v Wagner Coll., 49 NY2d 652, 658.) There is no evidence in this case that the university authorities who passed on this question did not act in good faith or that their actions were arbitrary or irrational.  