Simkovich v. Vassar College

• Decision Date: 27 April 1998
• Citation: 671 N.Y.S.2d 352,249 A.D.2d 551
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3873 In the Matter of Boris A. SIMKOVICH, Appellant, v. VASSAR COLLEGE, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 352

671 N.Y.S.2d 352

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3873

In the Matter of Boris A. SIMKOVICH, Appellant, v. VASSAR COLLEGE, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 27, 1998.

Atlantic Legal Foundation, Inc., New York City (Douglas Foster, Martin S. Kaufman and Briscoe R. Smith, of counsel), for appellant.

Donoghue, Thomas, Auslander & Drohan, Fishkill (James P. Drohan and Natalie J. Marshall, of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Vassar College, which, after a hearing, placed the petitioner on an involuntary leave of absence from his position as an Assistant Professor, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated April 8, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the petitioner's contention that Vassar College (hereinafter Vassar) failed to substantially observe its own procedures for disciplining faculty (see, Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 660, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302). Further, the determination that the petitioner violated Vassar's policy prohibiting harassment "was based upon the exercise of honest discretion after a full review of the operative facts" (Matter of Galiani v. Hofstra Univ., 118 A.D.2d 572, 499 N.Y.S.2d 182, citing Matter of Harris v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 62 N.Y.2d 956, 479 N.Y.S.2d 216, 468 N.E.2d 54, revg. 98 A.D.2d 58, 67-73, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368, for reasons stated in dissent of Kassal, J., at App.Div.) and was therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Patti Ann H. v. New York Med. Coll., 88 A.D.2d 296, 301, 453 N.Y.S.2d 196, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 734, 459 N.Y.S.2d 27, 445 N.E.2d 203; 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). Finally, we find that the punishment imposed was not excessive under the circumstances (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).

In light of this determination, we decline to reach the parties' remaining contentions.

BRACKEN, J.P., and THOMPSON, PIZZUTO and FLORIO, JJ., concur.