Galiani v. Hofstra University

• Decision Date: 03 March 1986
• Parties: , 30 Ed. Law Rep. 1247 In the Matter of Jeffrey GALIANI, Respondent, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 182

499 N.Y.S.2d 182

118 A.D.2d 572, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 1247

In the Matter of Jeffrey GALIANI, Respondent, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

March 3, 1986.

Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C., Mineola (John M. Armentano and Eugene S.R. Pagano, of counsel), for appellants.

Murphy and Bartol, Garden City (Kevin J. O'Brien, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, BRACKEN and NIEHOFF, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Hofstra University, which, after the petitioner's admission to certain misconduct, imposed sanctions, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered November 22, 1985, which annulled Hofstra's determination and ordered the appellants to reinstate the petitioner as a fully matriculated student.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

We disagree with Special Term's determination that the petitioner was denied his right to due process. The petitioner was accorded every right to which he was entitled in the context of a disciplinary proceeding instituted by a private university (see, Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 70 A.D.2d 934, 935, 417 N.Y.S.2d 521, revd. on other grounds 49 N.Y.2d 652, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302; Ayton v. Bean, 80 A.D.2d 839, 840, 436 N.Y.S.2d 781). Moreover, since the determination to suspend the petitioner was rendered in accordance with the university's published regulations (see, Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., supra; Matter of Fain v. Brooklyn Coll. of the City Univ. of N.Y., 112 A.D.2d 992, 493 N.Y.S.2d 13), and was based upon the exercise of honest discretion after a full review of the operative facts, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious so as to warrant judicial intervention (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. 98 A.D.2d 58, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368, for reasons stated in the dissent of Kassal, J., at App.Div., at pp. 67-73, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368; Matter of Patti Ann H. v. New York Med. Coll., 88 A.D.2d 296, 301, 453 N.Y.S.2d 196, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 734, 459 N.Y.S.2d 27, 445 N.E.2d 203, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18). Finally, we do not consider the penalty imposed to have been "so...