Budd v. State Univ. of N.Y. At Geneseo

• Decision Date: 20 November 2015
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08565,19 N.Y.S.3d 825,133 A.D.3d 1341
• Parties: In the Matter of James E. BUDD, Petitioner, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT GENESEO, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

133 A.D.3d 1341

19 N.Y.S.3d 825

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08565

In the Matter of James E. BUDD, Petitioner,

v.STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT GENESEO, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 20, 2015.

Law Office of Peter K. Skivington PLLC, Geneseo (Daniel R. Magillof Counsel), for Petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Brian D. Ginsbergof Counsel), for Respondent.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), seeking to annul the determination of respondent to expel him as an undergraduate student. Petitioner on four prior occasions had been subject to discipline, including a year-long suspension, for violating respondent's Student Code of Conduct (Code). He was subsequently expelled after respondent determined that he violated two sections of the Code, one proscribing physical assaults and a second prohibiting deliberate incitement of others to engage in Code-violating conduct. At the hearing on those charges, respondent relied in pertinent part on a police report and supporting depositions describing how petitioner tackled a man to the ground, pursued the man to a nearby apartment with other students, and punched the man in the face.

Our review of respondent's determination “is limited to determining whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious” (Matter of Rensselaer Socy. of Engrs. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.,260 A.D.2d 992, 993, 689 N.Y.S.2d 292). A public university such as respondent must “provide its students with the full panoply of due process guarantees ... [, which] requires that [students] be given the names of the witnesses against them, the opportunity to present a defense, and the results and finding of the hearing” (Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine,295 A.D.2d 944, 944, 744 N.Y.S.2d 590[internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the record demonstrates that respondent “substantially adhered to its grievance procedures and that its determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious” (Matter of Krysty v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo,39 A.D.3d 1220, 1220, 832 N.Y.S.2d 846), and that petitioner was provided with the “full panoply of due process guarantees” to which he was entitled ( Nawaz,295 A.D.2d at 944, 744 N.Y.S.2d 590). We reject petitioner's contention that respondent's failure to provide him certain documents through prehearing discovery denied him due process. It is clear from the record that petitioner possessed the relevant documents, and therefore he was not prejudiced by any failure on the part of respondent to provide those documents to him (see generally Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,15 N.Y.3d 235, 259–261, 907 N.Y.S.2d 122, 933 N.E.2d 721). Contrary to petitioner's further contention, he was not deprived of due process by any improper combination of roles of the hearing chairperson (see Matter of Amos v. Board of Educ. of Cheektowaga–Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist.,54 A.D.2d 297, 304, 388 N.Y.S.2d 435, affd.43 N.Y.2d 706, 401 N.Y.S.2d 207, 372 N.E.2d 41).

We reject petitioner's contention that respondent's written determination denied him due process by failing to set forth detailed factual findings with respect to his violation of the Code's “deliberate incitement” provision. “In a disciplinary proceeding at a public institution of higher education, due process entitles a student accused of misconduct to a statement detailing the factual findings and the evidence...