Caso v. New York State Public High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1980
• Citation: 434 N.Y.S.2d 60,78 A.D.2d 41
• Parties: In the Matter of an Application of Christopher CASO, an Infant, Appearing by his Parent, Ronald L. Caso, Appellant, v. The NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., D. Donald Distin, as President of the Section III Athletic Council of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 60

434 N.Y.S.2d 60

78 A.D.2d 41

In the Matter of an Application of Christopher CASO, an

Infant, Appearing by his Parent, Ronald L. Caso, Appellant, v. The NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,

INC., D. Donald Distin, as President of the Section III

Athletic Council of the New York State Public High School

Athletic Association, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Dec. 12, 1980.

O'Hara & O'Hara, Liverpool (Dennis O'Hara, Liverpool, of counsel), for appellant.

Hancock, Eastbrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust, Syracuse (Ronald Shaw, of counsel), for respondents.

Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and SIMONS, SCHNEPP, DOERR and WITMER, JJ.

SCHNEPP, Justice.

We are called upon to consider the circumstances under which the withdrawal of a student's privilege to participate in high school interscholastic athletics, because of a violation of eligibility rules, is subject to judicial review. In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner, Ronald L. Caso, appearing on behalf of his son, Christopher Caso, seeks an order annulling respondents' determination that Christopher was ineligible to participate in further high school gymnastics during the 1979 season.

The respondent, New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc. ("Athletic Association"), is a not-for-profit corporation consisting of a voluntary association of schools operating under the aegis of the New York State Commissioner of Education (see 8 NYCRR Part 135) and consists of various subdivisions called Sections, which include Section III. Section III is comprised of 106 schools, including the East Syracuse-Minoa School District. The Boards of Education of these schools have formed leagues and associations and are required to conform to approved rules and standards of the Athletic Association including certain eligibility standards which are in question here. The individual respondents are officers of Section III. Petitioner is the gymnastic coach at East Syracuse-Minoa which Christopher, a state high school gymnastic champion, attends.

The underlying facts are not disputed. On November 15, and 17, 1979 and international gymnastic contest featuring a South African team and certain individual American gymnasts was held in Reading, Pennsylvania. At some time in mid-October 1979 Christopher was invited to participate. The Section III championship competition to determine which gymnasts would represent it in the state finals on December 1, 1979 at Oneonta, New York was also scheduled to be held on November 16, 1979.

On November 15, 1979 petitioner was advised by respondent Alfred Kniser, Chairman of Gymnastics of the Section III Athletic Council of the Athletic Association, that, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Eligibility Standards of the Athletic Association, Christopher's participation in the Reading competition would render him ineligible to compete in interscholastic gymnastics for the remainder of that season. Respondent Alton B. Doyle, Executive Secretary of the Athletic Association, similarly advised petitioner of the effect of a Reading appearance on Christopher's eligibility. Christopher participated in the Reading event, did not compete in the Section III gymnastics finals on November 16, 1979 and was declared ineligible to participate in the state finals on December 1, 1979.

Rule 13 of the Eligibility Standards of respondent Association provides as follows:

Outside Competition: (a) No contestant may participate in non-school contests in baseball, basketball, cross country, fencing, field hockey, football, gymnastics, ice-hockey, indoor track, lacrosse, track and field, soccer, softball, swimming, volleyball, wrestling, after the student has participated in the first interschool contest in that sport in that season. This applies to all interschool competition in the above named sports.

(b) A student competing in any sport listed in (a) above in any game, meet, tournament, or athletic contest in the same sport loses eligibility in that sport from the date of such participation for the remainder of that sport season.

At Special Term petitioner argued that article 78 relief was appropriate since respondents' determination comes within the strictures of CPLR 7803 (subd. 3) and that respondents lacked jurisdiction to prohibit Christopher's participation as an individual in the Reading event. Petitioner also argued that respondents' actions in penalizing Christopher stigmatized his good name and reputation and thus jeopardized his "liberty interest" under the due process clause of the Federal and State Constitutions, imposed a sanction without notice or an opportunity for a due process hearing, and violated the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution since no rational basis exists for the distinctions made by Rule 13 among various classes of sports.

Respondents contend that Rule 13 has existed essentially unchanged for over 55 years and that many other states have similar prohibitions. They indicate that a limited number of sports are exempt, due to lack of competition among schools in those sports, e. g., skiing, bowling, golf and tennis. Respondents state that the purposes of the Rule 13 prohibition are to (1) insure that high school athletes participate under safe and healthy conditions; (2) promote school and team loyalty by limiting participation to the athlete's team during the school season; (3) avoid overtraining a high school athlete by not permitting participation in more extensive programs than those offered by the school; and (4) assure that the high school athlete has only one coaching style. Respondents claim that petitioner was advised of the existence and effect of Rule 13 when his gymnast sons Mark and Christopher desired to participate in an outside event in 1978. In that instance the boys did not compete. Petitioner does not deny personal knowledge of the provisions of Rule 13.

On the motion, petitioner argued that no triable issue of fact existed. Special Term denied the application as a matter of law and ruled that petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to commencing the article 78 proceeding. It found that petitioner was familiar with the eligibility rules, failed to petition the Executive Committee of the Athletic Association for permission to compete in the Reading event and failed to follow the appellate procedures in the Athletic Association's rules. Special Term held that petitioner entered Christopher in the Reading event aware of the possible consequences of the action and that both father and son knowingly violated the rule. We agree with Special Term's result but for different reasons.

Although this proceeding relates to a denial of eligibility to a high school student to participate in athletic events already concluded, the issue is not moot since the case is one in which the underlying questions are of general interest, have substantial public importance and are likely to recur (Matter of Concord Realty Co. v. City of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 308, 333 N.Y.S.2d 161, 284 N.E.2d 148; Matter of Gold v. Lomenzo, 29 N.Y.2d 468, 475, 476, 329 N.Y.S.2d 805, 280 N.E.2d 640; Matter of Eichner (Fox), 73 A.D.2d 431, 435, 423 N.Y.S.2d 580). In fact, petitioner claims that the same issue arose again in 1980.

An article 78 proceeding is the appropriate remedy to compel private corporations to fulfill obligations imposed upon them by statute as well as by their internal rules (Matter of Auer v. Dressel, 306 N.Y. 427, 118 N.E.2d 590; Matter of Weidenfeld v. Keppler, 84 App.Div. 235, 237-239, 82 N.Y.S. 634; affd. 176 N.Y. 562, 68 N.E. 1125; see Siegel, New York Practice, § 558, p. 777), including adherence to their own hearing or review procedures (Matter of Carr v. St. John's Univ., 17 A.D.2d 632, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 8). The general rule is that one must exhaust available administrative remedies prior to seeking relief from a court of law (Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d 560; Young Men's Christian Assn. v. Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 372 N.Y.S.2d 633, 334 N.E.2d 586). The Court of Appeals has held, nonetheless, that the exhaustion rule is not inflexible and need not be followed when the action is challenged as either unconstitutional or outside of a grant of power, when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury (Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, p. 57, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d 560; cf. Matter of First Nat. City Bank v. City of New York Finance Admin., 36 N.Y.2d 87, 92-93, 365 N.Y.S.2d 493, 324 N.E.2d 861).

Petitioner's contentions of a denial of Federal and State due process and State equal protection rights would appear to afford him standing to seek article 78 relief without first exhausting available administrative remedies. However, we find no such denial in this case. It is clear that the due process clause of the Federal Constitution does not protect student's claimed denial of eligibility under his school's athletic association rules since the question is frivolous and not substantial (Walsh v. Louisiana High School Athletic Assn., 5th Cir., 616 F.2d 152, 159 (unsuccessfully challenged existence and enforcement of athletic association rule whereby student lost one year's sport eligibility upon transfer to neighboring district); Albach v. Olde, 10th Cir., 531 F.2d 983 (unsuccessfully challenged transfer rule); Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Assn., 5th Cir., 430 F.2d 1155, 1157-1158 (unsuccessfully challenged athletic association's rule making student repeating a grade after the...