Id. “Such an implied contract, recognized under state law, provides the basis for a property interest that would be entitled to constitutional protection.” Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir.1991). Nonetheless, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the process afforded to her by the CUNY officials was constitutionally inadequate. At its core, Plaintiffs appeal was an academic dispute: a student asking the university bureaucracy to change her grade. The Supreme Court has been clear that there is no mandatory set of formal procedures required for challenging academic decisions. Id. at 89-90, 98 S.Ct. 948 (finding that academic challenges require less formalized procedures than disciplinary determinations); cf. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The deference given to academic institutions
holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding an inmate has a due process right to 1 advance written notice of the disciplinary charges 2an opportunity to call witness and present evidence and 3 a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that where appellant was put on notice of disciplinary charges against him and was afforded opportunity to respond to boards recommendation demands of due process were satisfied holding that in disciplinary proceedings a student must be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story