Opinion
11-01-2017
In the Matter of Richard LAI, Appellant, v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, Respondent.
Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place, NY (Rick Ostrove and Brandon Okano of counsel), for appellant. Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Michael J. Keane, Lauren M. Levine, and Michael J. Keane, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place, NY (Rick Ostrove and Brandon Okano of counsel), for appellant.
Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Michael J. Keane, Lauren M. Levine, and Michael J. Keane, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of St. John's University dated June 25, 2014, terminating the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), dated July 6, 2015, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The employment of the petitioner, a tenured professor at St. John's University's Peter J. Tobin College of Business, was terminated following an investigation into complaints of sexual harassment made by a female student. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding to review the determination by St. John's University that the charges of sexual harassment were substantiated, that his conduct violated its policy against sexual harassment and discrimination and created a hostile educational environment, and that termination of his employment was warranted. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The Supreme Court properly determined that St. John's University substantially complied with its own rules, guidelines, and disciplinary procedures (see Matter of Fruehwald v. Hofstra Univ., 82 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 920 N.Y.S.2d 183 ; see also Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302 ), and that its determination sustaining the charges against the petitioner and terminating his employment was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Wander v. St. John's University, 147 A.D.3d 1009, 47 N.Y.S.3d 395 ; Matter of Tomczak v. Board of Educ., Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist., 144 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 42 N.Y.S.3d 311 ).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.