Harris v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York

• Decision Date: 22 December 1983
• Citation: 470 N.Y.S.2d 368,98 A.D.2d 58
• Parties: , 15 Ed. Law Rep. 517 In the Matter of the Application of William HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents-Respondents, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 368

470 N.Y.S.2d 368

98 A.D.2d 58, 15 Ed. Law Rep. 517

In the Matter of the Application of William HARRIS Petitioner-Appellant, v. The TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN the CITY OF NEW YORK Respondents-Respondents For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Dec. 22, 1983.

Harry Kresky, New York City, of counsel (Frank Campana, New York City, with him on brief; Kresky, Sinawski & Hollenberg, New York City, attorneys), for petitioner-appellant.

Robert S. Arbeit, New York City, of counsel (Byron Golden, New York City, attorney), for respondent-respondent.

Before CARRO, J.P., and ASCH, SILVERMAN, BLOOM and KASSAL, JJ.

ASCH, Justice.

Petitioner has lived in a Columbia University-owned apartment building at 601 West 115th Street since 1971 pursuant to a series of one-year leases, renewed annually, which contained an "affiliation clause" requiring him to maintain an affiliation with the University as a condition to continuing his tenancy. Petitioner had been Chief Reference Book Editor of Columbia University Press from 1969-1975, mainly as Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Encyclopedia. Upon the completion of the Encyclopedia project he left Columbia's employ. In what was admittedly a tactic to retain his University affiliation and ergo his residence, Harris began working part time and informally in 1975 as a consultant to the Columbia University Library, basically in the School of International Affairs, aiding foreign students in their research and in their difficulties with the English language, for a "modest annual honorarium." Harris allegedly continued in this capacity from 1975 through 1980.

The University sought documentation of petitioner's affiliation status in 1978 and Dr. George Lowy, since retired, sent a statement as to Harris' consultant status. A similar request for proof of affiliation was made on October 1, 1980, and Harris submitted a letter from one "Donald Chang, Chief, Research Facilities-South Asian Division, School of International Affairs," dated October 6, 1980, which stated that Harris was employed as a "consultant to the Center for South Asian Studies." Petitioner was advised that this letter was not sufficient proof of affiliation and a Notice to Vacate was served on him on November 7, 1980.

In December of 1980, petitioner was admitted as a full-time Ph.D. candidate student in the University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. His lease was renewed until December 31, 1982. Thereafter, the University became aware that there was no "Donald Chang" employed by the South Asia Institute. Raymond Anderson, Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, wrote petitioner on June 30, 1981, advising him that disciplinary action may be taken because of his submission of this allegedly fraudulent letter. Anderson asked petitioner to make an appointment with him to "discuss the matter" and "make any representations on your own behalf."

A meeting was then held between Anderson and Harris on August 17, 1981. Anderson termed it a "hearing" while Harris characterized it as a "stern headmaster dressing down an adolescent student." It appears that what transpired was, in fact, a face to face meeting between only Anderson and Harris in Anderson's office, at which Anderson informed Harris that he believed the "Chang" letter to be a forgery prepared by Harris and Harris replied by denying that it was a forgery and stating that he obtained the letter by means of a telephone conversation with an unknown person in the School of International Affairs.

Anderson wrote Harris a letter on August 17, 1981, memorializing the meeting, and stated in it that he considered the explanation "implausible" but would give Harris the "benefit of the doubt" and consider his action "gross negligence." As a consequence, Anderson stated that Harris would have two weeks to "submit persuasive evidence" that the letter "represented a bona fide affiliation with the University acceptable to the Office of the General Counsel." If Harris could not make such a showing, Anderson would then "request that your lease not be renewed upon its termination."

Harris replied by a letter dated August 28, 1981, explaining his long-term affiliation with the University, including his current status as student, and reiterating his story concerning the letter and his innocence in obtaining it. He also claimed that his lease was renewed in December based upon his new status as student, and not upon any effect of this letter.

Anderson immediately replied by rejecting this letter as "reminding me of what I already know" and not as "persuasive evidence." Anderson stated that "I consider the issue closed" (letter of August 31, 1981).

Columbia instituted a holdover proceeding in Civil Court on April 7, 1982, to recover possession of the apartment. On May 6, 1982, this proceeding was discontinued due to the existing extension of Harris' lease until December 1982 (claimed to be a clerical error).

On July 7, 1982, in another attempt to get Harris out of the apartment, Anderson wrote Harris, claiming that he "took advantage" of this clerical error "to evade my directive" in "a flagrant breach of discipline." Anderson informed him that unless Harris vacated the apartment by September 1, 1982, he "would not be permitted, for disciplinary reasons, to enroll in the University in the future, and that fact will be noted on your permanent academic record."

On August 2, 1982, Harris' attorney, Harry Kresky, responded to the July 7 letter, stating that Harris had a valid lease until December 31, 1982 on the basis of being a bona fide student and not because of the allegedly fraudulent letter of October 1980.

By letter dated September 17, 1982, Anderson dismissed Harris from the University for disciplinary reasons for failure to comply with the prior directive to vacate the apartment.

Harris then instituted this instant Article 78 proceeding challenging this determination.

The application was denied and the petition dismissed by Special Term on the grounds that petitioner did not show that the University abused its discretion, violated due process or acted contrary to law. It found that petitioner had notice and an opportunity to be heard and that also he did not exhaust his administrative appeals. Finally, Special Term found that because of the allegedly underlying fraud of the Chang letter, petitioner was barred from relief under the clean hands doctrine.

The majority of this court disagrees with Special Term and would reverse.

It is undisputed that the actions of a private university against a student are subject to Article 78 review and that the courts will intervene if the disciplinary dismissal of a student is arbitrary (e.g., Matter of Sofair v. State Univ., 54 A.D.2d 287, 388 N.Y.S.2d 453, rev'd on other grounds, 44 N.Y.2d 475, 406 N.Y.S.2d 276, 377 N.E.2d 730). However, it is equally well settled that "when a university, in expelling a student, acts within its jurisdiction, not arbitrarily but in the exercise of an honest discretion based on facts within its knowledge that justify the exercise of discretion, a court may not review the exercise of its discretion" (Carr v. St. John's University, 17 A.D.2d 632 at 634, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410, aff'd without opin., 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18; see also, e.g., Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 49 N.Y.2d 652, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302; Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 49 N.Y.2d 408, 426 N.Y.S.2d 248, 402 N.E.2d 1150; Sofair, supra ).

In matters concerning a student's academic qualifications, the determination of the school is granted great weight and courts are reluctant to intervene, as such determinations are within the expertise of the university and rest upon the subjective professional judgment of trained educators (see Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Ed., supra ). But in cases involving expulsion for causes unrelated to academic achievement, courts must look more closely at the matter (see Tedeschi v. Wagner College, supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 658, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302).

In the case at bar, the factual background, given at some length supra, shows that Columbia University was acting throughout not as an academic aerie of higher education. Dean Anderson appeared primarily concerned with getting petitioner out of a rent-stabilized apartment on behalf of the landlord, Columbia. To that end, he held the threat of Harris' status as a Columbia student as a sword of Damocles over petitioner's head. The issue presented is simply put--was Anderson, acting on behalf of the University, arbitrary when he dismissed Harris for failure to comply with a directive to vacate an apartment to which Harris had a legal right? I note that although the University speaks of Harris' fraud vis-a-vis the letter he submitted, the express reason he was dismissed was his failure to leave his apartment despite his lease and despite the fact Columbia had discontinued the holdover proceeding in Civil Court. When the University acts as a university, this court should be mindful of the restrictions placed upon judicial scrutiny of its actions in expelling or disciplining students. When, however, the University acts as a landlord, then this court must be more mindful of the rights of the student qua tenant. It offends the basic sense of fairness for the college to use its disciplinary power to strengthen its bargaining position as a landlord.

In the instant case it is true that the submission of the "Chang letter" was probably a fraudulent act, even though Columbia did not conclusively prove so. Harris' explanation was implausible, but Columbia did not rebut it or investigate the matter further. However, we will assume that the letter was fraudulently submitted by Harris.

The incident occurred before Harris was admitted as a student. It also did not affect his tenant status, as the University rejected the letter as a basis for a...