Beilis v. Albany Medical College of Union University

• Decision Date: 10 March 1988
• Parties: , 45 Ed. Law Rep. 1201 In the Matter of Heidi BEILIS, Respondent, v. ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE OF UNION UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 932

525 N.Y.S.2d 932

136 A.D.2d 42, 45 Ed. Law Rep. 1201

In the Matter of Heidi BEILIS, Respondent, v. ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE OF UNION UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

March 10, 1988.

Bond, Schoeneck & King (David R. Sheridan, of counsel), Albany, for appellants.

James E. Banagan, Albany, for respondent.

Before KANE, J.P., and WEISS, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.

WEISS, Justice.

In April 1987, when petitioner was a first-year student at respondent Albany Medical College of Union University, she was found guilty of violating the Student Honor Code after a hearing before the Honor Committee on charges of cheating in an examination; on May 15, 1987, respondents placed her on nonacademic probation. She did not appeal the determination or the penalty imposed. In the meantime, on May 15, 1987, petitioner is alleged to have again cheated on an examination. Following written notice naming her accusers and stating the substance of the charges, a second hearing was held. The charges were substantiated and a one-year leave of absence from school was imposed by respondents. This CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul respondents' second determination and expunge petitioner's record was commenced. A temporary restraining order was granted permitting petitioner to continue her studies in the college pending determination of this proceeding. Supreme Court, in a bench decision devoid of reasons, granted the petition and annulled respondents' determination. This appeal by respondents ensued.

Initially, we note that in the absence of any explanation by Supreme Court, we must presume that the petition was granted upon the grounds set forth in the moving papers (see, 4 NY Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 410, at 515, citing Triangle Radio Supply Co. v. De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel., 210 App.Div. 87, 205 N.Y.S. 470). The petition contends that the decision was arbitrary and capricious per se and violative of the due process rights guaranteed by both the US and NY Constitutions, and that the punishment is overly severe.

It is well settled that a private educational institution is bound by its own published guidelines or rules ( Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 655, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302). In Stone v. Cornell Univ., 126 A.D.2d 816, 510 N.Y.S.2d 313, this court held that "[a] college or university must substantially adhere to its own rules regarding * * * procedures" ( id., at 817, 510 N.Y.S.2d 313; see, Matter of Harris v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 956, 479 N.Y.S.2d 216, 468 N.E.2d 54, revg. on dissenting opn. below 98 A.D.2d 58, 70, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368; Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 660, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302; Matter of Galiani v. Hofstra Univ., 118 A.D.2d 572, 499 N.Y.S.2d 182). While courts are reluctant to intervene in determinations based upon academic qualifications (Matter of Harris v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., supra ), actions suspending or expelling students for nonacademic reasons are reviewed more closely ( Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 658, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302).

We have examined petitioner's allegations and find them unpersuasive. There was compliance with the Student Honor Code. Any claims concerning the April 22, 1987 hearing on prior charges are not properly before us since no appeal was taken from that determination. The delivery of the Honor Committee report on May 27, 1987 instead of May 22, 1987 was inconsequential ( see, Matter of Mary M. v. Clark, 100 A.D.2d 41, 473 N.Y.S.2d 843). In all other respects, there was substantial compliance with the Student Honor Code as to content of notice, presentation of evidence, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and sufficiency of evidence. The testimony of two eyewitnesses describing petitioner's conduct during the examination was sufficient to support the inference that she had cheated ( cf., Matter of Fain v. Brooklyn Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 112 A.D.2d 992, 493 N.Y.S.2d 13). The report submitted was fair, complete and in compliance with the Student Honor Code.

Nor do we find merit in the contention that petitioner was denied her constitutional due process rights. Section III (E) of the Student Honor Code By-Laws specifically provides that "[n]either counsel for the accused nor counsel for the Honor Committee shall be permitted to be present at an inquiry proceeding of the Honor Committee". Petitioner vigorously and effectively challenged her accusers and presented arguments on her...