Opinion
2014-10884, Index No. 8109/14.
10-11-2017
In the Matter of Michael Chiya ARYEH, appellant, v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, et al., respondents.
Michael Chiya Aryeh, Lawrence, NY (Saadya Bendelstein, Far Rockaway, NY, of counsel), appellant pro se. Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Michael J. Keane, Lauren M. Levine, and Dayna B. Tann of counsel), for respondents.
Michael Chiya Aryeh, Lawrence, NY (Saadya Bendelstein, Far Rockaway, NY, of counsel), appellant pro se.
Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Michael J. Keane, Lauren M. Levine, and Dayna B. Tann of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Dean of Students of St. John's University, dated August 22, 2014, confirming a determination of the University Conduct Board dated July 21, 2014, made after a hearing, suspending the petitioner from attending St. John's University School of Law for two academic semesters and placing him on disciplinary probation, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), dated October 6, 2014, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In 2014, the petitioner was a law student at St. John's University (hereinafter the University). Based on a finding of non-academic misconduct, the University suspended the petitioner from its law school for two academic semesters, beginning with the fall 2014 semester, and also placed him on disciplinary probation. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the University's determination. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
Contrary to the respondents' contention, the expiration of the petitioner's period of suspension does not render the petitioner's appeal academic, because the University's determination still imposes significant enduring consequences upon the petitioner (see Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 671, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 ).
"Courts have a ‘restricted role’ in reviewing determinations of colleges and universities" ( Matter of Powers v. St. John's Univ. Sch. of Law, 25 N.Y.3d 210, 216, 10 N.Y.S.3d 156, 32 N.E.3d 371, quoting Maas v.
Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 92, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 ). "A determination will not be disturbed unless a school acts arbitrarily and not in the exercise of its honest discretion, it fails to abide by its own rules or imposes a penalty so excessive that it shocks one's sense of fairness" ( Matter of Powers v. St. John's Univ. Sch. of Law, 25 N.Y.3d at 216, 10 N.Y.S.3d 156, 32 N.E.3d 371 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Harris v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 956, 959, 479 N.Y.S.2d 216, 468 N.E.2d 54, revg. for reasons stated in dissenting op of Kassal, J., 98 A.D.2d 58, 67–73, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; 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, 234, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ).
Moreover, a student subject to disciplinary action at a private university is not entitled to the " ‘full panoply of due process rights' " ( Matter of Kickertz v. New York Univ., 25 N.Y.3d 942, 944, 6 N.Y.S.3d 546, 29 N.E.3d 893, quoting Matter of Ebert v. Yeshiva Univ., 28 A.D.3d 315, 315, 813 N.Y.S.2d 408 ). "Such an institution need only ensure that its published rules are ‘substantially observed’ " ( Matter of Kickertz v. New York Univ., 25 N.Y.3d at 944, 6 N.Y.S.3d 546, 29 N.E.3d 893, quoting Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 660, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302 ).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court properly made a summary determination upon the pleadings, papers, and admissions, as no triable issues of fact were raised (see CPLR 409[b] ; see also CPLR 7804 [h] ). Moreover, the University established that it substantially observed the disciplinary procedures set forth in its code of conduct (see Matter of VanHouten v. Mount St. Mary Coll., 137 A.D.3d 1293, 1295, 28 N.Y.S.3d 433 ).
The University acted in the exercise of its honest discretion, and did not act arbitrarily, fail to abide by its own rules, or impose an excessive penalty (see Powers v. St. John's Univ. School of Law, 25 N.Y.3d at 216, 10 N.Y.S.3d 156, 32 N.E.3d 371 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.