Schuyler v. State University of New York at Albany

• Decision Date: 13 February 1969
• Citation: 297 N.Y.S.2d 368,31 A.D.2d 273
• Parties: In the Matter of Joseph P. SCHUYLER, Appellant, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 368

297 N.Y.S.2d 368

31 A.D.2d 273

In the Matter of Joseph P. SCHUYLER, Appellant, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Feb. 13, 1969.

Harvey & Harvey, Albany (Jonathan P. Harvey, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Ruth Kessler Toch and John Q. Driscoll, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

Before HERLIHY, J.P., and AULISI, STALEY, COOKE and GREENBLOTT, JJ.

COOKE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 29, 1968 in Albany County, dismissing petitioner's application in a proceeding under CPLR article 78. Purporting to sue for himself and all other registered students of the State University of New York at Albany accused of taking part in a demonstration at the Administration Building thereat on February 21, 1968 and of violating University regulations governing protests and demonstrations, appellant prays that respondents, occupying various administrative positions in the State University of New York, be restrained from holding hearings regarding the charges against petitioner and from making any determinations or directives relative to disciplinary proceedings against him and those similarly situated. He and certain other students staged a demonstration at said time and place to register their disapproval of the presence of a chemical company's employment interviewer. Respondents contend that the protest was boisterous and abusive, such that the interviewer was subjected to extreme harassment, students scheduled for interviews were prevented from attending them and movement to offices was prevented, resulting in a complete disruption of the orderly functioning of the University.

Although it is urged that respondents be 'permanently stayed and enjoined' and although prohibition has been described as being in effect an injunction (Matter of Baltimore Mail S.S. Co. v. Fawcett, 269 N.Y. 379, 383, 199 N.E. 628, 629, 104 A.L.R. 1068; Matter of Queens-Nassau Transit Lines v. Maltbie, 183 Misc. 924, 928, 51 N.Y.S.2d 841, 844, affd. 269 App.Div. 680, 53 N.Y.S.2d 954, affd. 294 N.Y. 887, 62 N.E.2d 784), in reality this is a special proceeding commenced by service of a petition and order to show cause (CPLR 304) seeking relief in the nature of prohibition pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR (23 Carmody-Wait 2d, § 145:206). Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy designed to forbid the exercise of unauthorized power, whether it be an act devoid of or in excess of jurisdiction, and, not being favored by courts, it is never issued as a matter of right but only in a sound discretion in clear-cut situations when there is no other remedy (CPLR 7803, subd. 2; Matter of Martinis v. Supreme Ct. of State of N.Y., 15 N.Y.2d 240, 251, 258 N.Y.S.2d 65, 71, 206 N.E.2d 165, 169; People ex rel. Childs v. Extraordinary Trial Term of Supreme Ct., 228 N.Y. 463, 468, 127 N.E. 486, 487; People ex rel. Livingston v. Wyatt, 186 N.Y. 383, 393, 79 N.E. 330, 334; Matter of City of New York v. Maltbie, 248 App.Div. 36, 38, 289 N.Y.S. 558, 560, affd. 274 N.Y. 464, 8 N.E.2d 605).

The administrators of a college or university possess an inherent authority to maintain order on its campus and freedom of movement thereon for invited guests, students and members of the school staff; the power to discipline, suspend and expel students whose conduct is disruptive thereof being a necessary attribute of the government of educational institutions to be exercised in sound discretion and not arbitrarily or capriciously (Matter of Carr v. St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 A.D.2d 632, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18; People ex rel. Goldenkoff v. Albany Law School, 198 App.Div. 460, 466, 191 N.Y.S. 349, 353; Goldstein v. New York Univ., 76 App.Div. 80, 83, 78 N.Y.S. 739, 741; People ex rel. O'Sullivan v. N.Y. Law School, 68 Hun 118, 121--122; Barker v. Hardway, D.C., 283 F.Supp. 228, 235; Buttny v. Smiley, D.C., 281 F.Supp. 280, 285--286). In addition, by statute, subject to the general management, supervision and control of and in accordance with the rules established by the State University trustees, the operations and affairs of each...