Opinion
04-28-2017
In The Matter of Kristen PONICHTERA, Petitioner, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, Respondent.
Frank M. Bogulski, Buffalo, for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank M. Bogulski, Buffalo, for Petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), petitioner seeks to annul a determination dismissing her from respondent's Doctor of Nursing Practice program for her violation of respondent's admissions integrity standards. "[W]hen a university has adopted a rule or guideline establishing the procedure to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion[,] that procedure must be substantially observed" (Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 660, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302 ; see Matter of McConnell v. Le Moyne Coll., 25 A.D.3d 1066, 1068–1069, 808 N.Y.S.2d 860 ). " ‘Judicial scrutiny of the determination of disciplinary matters between a university and its students ... is limited to determining whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious' " (Matter of Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. of Dental Medicine, 295 A.D.2d 944, 944, 744 N.Y.S.2d 590 ; see Matter of Budd v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Geneseo, 133 A.D.3d 1341, 1342, 19 N.Y.S.3d 825, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 919, 2016 WL 699268 ). In a case such as this involving a public university, "[d]ue process requires that the petitioner[ ] be given the name of the witnesses against [her], the opportunity to present a defense, and the results and finding of the hearing" ( Nawaz, 295 A.D.2d at 944, 744 N.Y.S.2d 590 ). Here, we conclude that those basic requirements of due process were met (see Budd, 133 A.D.3d at 1342–1343, Potsdam, 105 A.D.3d 1117, 1119, 962 N.Y.S.2d 752 ).
Moreover, where, as here, "a university, in expelling a student, acts within its jurisdiction, not arbitrarily but in the exercise of an honest discretion based on facts within its knowledge that justify the exercise of discretion, a court may not review the exercise of its discretion" (Matter of Carr v. St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 A.D.2d 632, 634, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18 ). We conclude that the determination of respondent, which found petitioner guilty of omitting from her applications for admission into respondent's program information concerning her prior enrollment at and dismissal from a graduate degree program at Gannon University, is not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion and is rationally supported by the record (see Matter of Katz v. Board of Regents of Univ. of the State of N.Y., 85 A.D.3d 1277, 1281, 924 N.Y.S.2d 210, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 716, 2011 WL 5573983 ; see generally Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law Sch., 76 N.Y.2d 241, 246, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104 ; Matter of Hyman v. Cornell Univ., 82 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 918 N.Y.S.2d 226 ; Matter of Warner v. Elmira Coll., 59 A.D.3d 909, 910–911, 873 N.Y.S.2d 381 ; Matter of Lusardi v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 284 A.D.2d 992, 992, 726 N.Y.S.2d 202, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 608, 739 N.Y.S.2d 97, 765 N.E.2d 300 ).
We further conclude that the penalty of dismissal from the academic program was not "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ; see Matter of Quercia v. New York Univ., 41 A.D.3d 295, 297, 838 N.Y.S.2d 538 ). In light of our determination, we do not consider petitioner's remaining contentions.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.