Dequito v. New School for General Studies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dequito v. New School for General Studies

68 A.D.3d 559, 890 N.Y.2d 56

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 559 (Dequito v. New School for General Studies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dequito v. New School for General Studies, 68 A.D.3d 559, 890 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the policy of expelling a student for plagiarizing at any stage of her Master’s thesis is not arbitrary, capricious or irrational. There is no indication that respondent’s determination was made in bad faith as the result of discrimination based on petitioner’s national origin. Since there is no issue of fact with respect to that issue, a hearing was not required (Matter of Feigman v Klepak, 62 AD2d 816, 819 [1978]; cf. CPLR 7804 [h]). Given that petitioner was repeatedly advised to remove the plagiarized portions of her thesis from her various drafts, we do not find the penalty of expulsion to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

The record indicates that respondent substantially complied with its procedures for suspending and expelling a student on the grounds of plagiarism (see Matter of Trahms v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 245 AD2d 124, 125 [1997]). Petitioner received adequate notice of the ad hoc committee’s hearing, as well as a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the appeals committee meeting. There is no indication in the record that respondent’s policies prohibited the professor who reported the plagiarism from serving on the ad hoc committee, or the associate dean of academic services from serving on both the ad hoc and appeals committees. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the policy of expelling a student for plagiarizing at any stage of her Master’s thesis is not arbitrary, capricious or irrational. There is no indication that respondent’s determination was made in bad faith as the result of discrimination based on petitioner’s national origin. Since there is no issue of fact with respect to that issue, a hearing was not required (Matter of Feigman v Klepak, 62 AD2d 816, 819 [1978]; cf. CPLR 7804 [h]). Given that petitioner was repeatedly advised to remove the plagiarized portions of her thesis from her various drafts, we do not find the penalty of expulsion to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

The record indicates that respondent substantially complied with its procedures for suspending and expelling a student on the grounds of plagiarism (see Matter of Trahms v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 245 AD2d 124, 125 [1997]). Petitioner received adequate notice of the ad hoc committee’s hearing, as well as a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the appeals committee meeting. There is no indication in the record that respondent’s policies prohibited the professor who reported the plagiarism from serving on the ad hoc committee, or the associate dean of academic services from serving on both the ad hoc and appeals committees. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 559, 890 N.Y.2d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dequito-v-new-school-for-general-studies-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack