Ryan v. Hofstra University
| Decision Date | 19 January 1972 |
| Citation | 328 N.Y.S.2d 339,68 Misc.2d 890 |
| Parties | Application of Robert P. RYAN, Jr., an infant, by his father and natural guardian, Robert P. Ryan, Sr., Petitioner, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Alan Manning Miller, Freeport, for petitioner.
Gehrig, Ritter, Coffey, McHale & McBride, Hempstead, for respondent.
In Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964, and by subsequent judgment filed November 9, 1971, this Court declared principles and rules concerning the attempted explusion of a student from Hofstra University.
Essentially, the Court nullified the disciplinary action taken against the student, Robert Ryan, Jr., and directed his reinstatement. the University, however, was authorized to reinstitute disciplinary proceedings in accordance with its rules subject to such modification as might be required by due process or equal protection of the laws. The Court discussed governing principles in its memorandum.
It now appears from a motion submitted by the University and answered by the student that discussion between the parties ensued both before and after entry of judgment in the proceeding regarding renewal of the disciplinary proceedings in an agreeable procedure consistant with the principles established by the Court. However, in the final analysis the parties could not get together. Accordingly, Hofstra University petitioned here for the entry of a supplementary judgment setting forth a procedure which it proposes. The student resists, arguing that Hofstra seeks relief by way of the supplementary judgment denied to it under the basic judgment.
The University has determined not to appeal, but seeks to comply with the Court order. While it is not the practice of the Courts to render advisory opinions, see Schollmeyer v. Sutter, 3 A.D.2d 665, 158 N.Y.S.2d 354, it is within the residual discretion of the Court to clarify its principles previously expressed, and to give content to their specific application. The underlying subject matter, treated in a lengthy opinion, invoked sophisticated concepts of constitutional and other law.
Moreover, Hofstra University is an educational corporation organized under the State Education Law. For the very consideration described in the Court's memorandum decision, the University's activities are replete with public interest and concern.
Bona fide disputation continues to flare between the University and the student. The Court has the ability to act effectively here. It would be an abdication of the judicial function by any pragmatic social test, not to mention the prompt administration of justice, for the Court to withdraw itself from these proceedings at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the proposed renewed disciplinary procedure of the student by Hofstra University, and with the modifications indicated, expresses its approval.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ithaca College v. Yale Daily News Pub. Co., Inc.
...are to the public. Its existence and favored position can be justified only as a public stewardship." (Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 666, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964, supp. op. in 68 Misc.2d 890, 328 N.Y.S.2d 339). Though Ithaca College's characterization of itself as a "private lib......
-
Galton v. College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Columbia University
...of further attendance (Carr v. St. John's University, 34 Misc.2d 319, 231 N.Y.S.2d 403; see Ryan v. Hofstra University, 67 Misc.2d 651, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964, 68 Misc.2d 890, 328 N.Y.S.2d 339). Although these are cases limiting the right of educational institutions to dismiss and discipline indi......