Haug v. State Univ. of N.Y. At Potsdam

• Decision Date: 18 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 102,102
• Citation: 32 N.Y.3d 1044,112 N.E.3d 323,87 N.Y.S.3d 146
• Parties: In the Matter of Benjamin HAUG, Respondent, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT POTSDAM, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

32 N.Y.3d 1044
112 N.E.3d 323
87 N.Y.S.3d 146

In the Matter of Benjamin HAUG, Respondent,
v.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT POTSDAM, et al., Appellants.

No. 102

Court of Appeals of New York.

October 18, 2018

112 N.E.3d 324

87 N.Y.S.3d 147

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Brian D. Ginsberg, Andrea Oser and Victor Paladino of counsel), for appellants.

Carlisle Law Firm, P.C., Ogdensburg (Lloyd G. Grandy II of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

32 N.Y.3d 1045

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the

87 N.Y.S.3d 148

112 N.E.3d 325

matter remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division to address, inter alia, petitioner's challenge to respondents' determination that he violated their code of student conduct ( CPLR 7803[4] ; 7804[g] ). The court concluded that respondents' determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

Upon judicial review, the Appellate Division must accord deference to the findings of the administrative decision-maker. As we said in Matter of Pell , "neither the Appellate Division nor the Court of Appeals has power to upset the determination of an administrative tribunal on a question of fact; * * * the courts have no right to review the facts generally as to weight of evidence, beyond seeing to it that there is substantial evidence" ( Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).

"We emphasize that [t]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" ( Matter of FMC Corp. v. Unmack, 92 N.Y.2d 179, 188, 677 N.Y.S.2d 269, 699 N.E.2d 893 [1998] ). It is " ‘less than a preponderance of the evidence’ " (

32 N.Y.3d 1046

Matter of Kelly v. DiNapoli, 30 N.Y.3d 674, 684, 70 N.Y.S.3d 881, 94 N.E.3d 444 [2018], quoting Matter of Ridge Rd. Fire Dist. v. Schiano, 16 N.Y.3d 494, 499, 922 N.Y.S.2d 249, 947 N.E.2d 140 [2011] ), and "demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable" ( Matter of Ridge Rd. , 16 N.Y.3d at 499, 922 N.Y.S.2d 249, 947 N.E.2d 140 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Stated differently, "[r]ationality is what is reviewed under ... the substantial evidence rule" ( Matter of Pell, 34 N.Y.2d at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ); substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" ( 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently (see Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 423, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862 [1996] ; Matter of Axel v. Duffy–Mott Co. , 47 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 416 N.Y.S.2d 554, 389 N.E.2d 1075 [1979] ).

"[O]ften there is substantial evidence on both sides of an issue disputed before an administrative agency" ( Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v. New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 31 N.Y.3d 1045, 1047, 76 N.Y.S.3d 510, 100 N.E.3d 849 [2018]...