Mary M. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 08 March 1984
• Parties: , 16 Ed. Law Rep. 1347 In the Matter of MARY M., * Respondent, v. James M. CLARK, as President of the State University of New York at Cortland, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 843

473 N.Y.S.2d 843

100 A.D.2d 41, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 1347

In the Matter of MARY M., ^* Respondent, v. James M. CLARK, as President of the State University of New

York at Cortland, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

March 8, 1984.

[100 A.D.2d 42] Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter G. Crary, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Haskell, Foley, Meldrim & Shay, Cortland (Richard J. Shay, Cortland, of counsel), for respondent.

Ronald H. Sinzheimer, Albany, for Student Association of the State University of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.

Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. (Eugene D. Gulland and Irving C. Faber, Washington, D.C., of counsel), Sp. Counsel to Sheldon Elliot Steinbach, Washington, D.C., General Counsel for American Council on Education, amicus curiae.

Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, WEISS, MIKOLL and YESAWICH, JJ.

OPINION FOR REVERSAL

MIKOLL, Justice.

This is an appeal from Special Term's annulment of petitioner's suspension from the State University of New York at Cortland (hereafter Cortland) for cheating. Special Term found that the procedures followed by Cortland in suspending petitioner violated the State Administrative Procedure Act, due process of law, Cortland's own procedural rules as set out in the student handbook, and section 41 of the General Construction Law. By judgment entered March 9, 1983, Special Term annulled the suspension and ordered expungement of all references to petitioner's cheating and plagiarism from her records.

Petitioner was accused by Professor Eberhard Alsen of "collaboration (or plagiarism)" with another student in the preparation of a term paper. She and the other student were requested to meet with the professor at his office and there both signed an admission that they collaborated on the assignment.

Later the same month, petitioner was accused of cheating on an examination given by Professor Thomas Cain and subsequently petitioner requested a hearing before the academic grievance tribunal on this charge. A hearing was held before the tribunal composed of two faculty members, one student and an administrator. Petitioner and Professor Cain testified to their versions of the events. Petitioner was found guilty by a vote of two to one. A memorandum summarizing the testimony, the tribunal's vote and carrying a recommendation of dismissal was forwarded to Cortland's vice-president, Dr. Charles O. Warren. He accepted the tribunal's finding and imposed a one semester suspension and a right to readmission after reapplication and evaluation thereof by Cortland. Petitioner was informed of the action by letter dated December 17, 1982 and was further advised that the decision was on file in the vice-president's office for petitioner's review.

There must be a reversal. Addressing ad seriatum the bases of Special Term's decision to annul, we first hold that Special Term erred in concluding that article 3 of the State Administrative Procedure Act (hereafter SAPA) was applicable to the instant proceeding and that a failure to afford petitioner the due process rights enunciated therein requires an annulment of the instant disciplinary proceedings. SAPA was not intended to apply to all State agency proceedings. Article 3 of SAPA indicates that the statute has applicability solely to adjudicatory proceedings required by law to be made on the record (SAPA, § 102, subd. 3). There is no statute or regulation which requires the instant college disciplinary proceedings to be on the record, nor any constitutional requirement therefor, and, consequently, we hold that SAPA is not applicable to the instant proceeding (Matter of Asman v. Ambach, 98 A.D.2d 847, 471 N.Y.S.2d 336 [Dec. 8, 1983]; Matter of Landesman v. Board of Regents, 94 A.D.2d 827, 463 N.Y.S.2d 118; Matter of Vector East Realty Corp. v. Abrams, 89 A.D.2d 453, 455 N.Y.S.2d 773, app. withdrawn 58 N.Y.2d 973, 452 N.Y.S.2d 492).

The seminal case in the field of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct at tax supported institutions of higher education, Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, cert. den. 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193, has set down governing precepts in the following words:

Whenever a governmental body acts so as to injure an individual, the Constitution requires that the act be consonant with due process of law. The minimum procedural requirements necessary to satisfy due process depend upon the circumstances and the interests of the parties involved (id. at 155).

We find that due process was accorded this petitioner under the Dixon (supra ) test and its progeny. Petitioner was served with a written notice of charges; she was made aware of grounds which would justify her expulsion or suspension by way of the student handbook; the hearing tribunal afforded her an opportunity to hear and confront the...