Summary
In Trahms, the petitioner was informed of the charges against him in a meeting four days before the scheduled hearing; he orally acknowledged that he had adequate notice of the hearing and charges; and he had the opportunity to produce two witnesses to give testimony.
Summary of this case from MTR OF EBERT v. Yeshiva Univ.Opinion
December 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.).
Petitioner William Trahms was expelled in December 1994 from respondent Columbia University School of Nursing on the ground of his having committed plagiarism. After a meeting on December 2, 1994 between petitioner, another student and two professors concerning the strong similarities between the two students' papers, the professors informed both students that the matter would be referred to the School's Honor Board. Petitioner was given four days oral notice by the Dean that a hearing would be held before the Honor Board on the plagiarism charge, and that he had the right to call witnesses on his behalf Petitioner appeared at the hearing and vigorously challenged the plagiarism charge. However, based on findings that the papers submitted by the students were virtually identical, that petitioner was unfamiliar with his own work and that many of his statements were inconsistent with those of his own witnesses, the Honor Board concluded that petitioner had not submitted original work and recommended a failing grade and dismissal from the school. His appeal to the School's Appeals Board was rejected.
Petitioner commenced the instant article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment vacating his dismissal. The IAS Court granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter to respondents for a de novo hearing, which hearing was to be recorded verbatim. The court ruled that the Honor Board's determination must be vacated because petitioner had not received adequate notice of the hearing and charges.
We disagree and find, to the contrary, that petitioner received adequate notice of the hearing and charges against him. Respondents substantially complied with their published guidelines in the instant case ( see, Matter of Mu Ch. of Delta Kappa Epsilon v. Colgate Univ., 176 A.D.2d 11, 14; see also, Matter of Harris v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 62 N.Y.2d 956, 959, revg 98 A.D.2d 58). Petitioner appeared at the hearing on the correct date, he orally confirmed at its commencement that he had been given notice of the hearing and charges and he profferred a defense, which included the testimony of two witnesses. These facts convincingly prove that petitioner suffered no prejudice due to the allegedly inadequate notice ( cf., Matter of Weidemann v. State Univ., 188 A.D.2d 974, 975-976).
We also disagree with the IAS Court that a verbatim recording of the Honor Board hearing was required ( see, Matter of Gruen v. Chase, 215 A.D.2d 481; Matter of Mary M. v. Clark, 100 A.D.2d 41, 43; see also, Matter of Girsky v. Touro Coll., 210 A.D.2d 406, 407). The record, as it now stands, is adequate for judicial review.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.