Drucker v. Hofstra University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drucker v. Hofstra University

279 A.D.2d 472, 719 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 179

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 472 (Drucker v. Hofstra University) 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

Drucker v. Hofstra University, 279 A.D.2d 472, 719 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Herman A. Berliner, as Provost of Hofstra University, dated June 14, 1999, to terminate the petitioner’s employment as Chair of the Department of Speech Communication and Rhetorical Studies, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered March 1, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination to remove the petitioner as Chair of the Department of Speech Communication and Rhetorical Studies because of her failure to maintain “an effective communication climate” with her faculty, in violation, inter alia, of Hofstra University’s Faculty Policy Series No. 13, § I (C), was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, she was not hired unconditionally. According to the collective bargaining agreement, which was incorporated by reference into the petitioner’s contract of employment, she could be removed for “good cause” upon the [473]*473filing of a petition signed by two-thirds of the membership of her department, followed by a meeting between the dean and the department membership (see, Collective Bargaining Agreement article 21.4; Faculty Policy Series No. 13, § 8). The record discloses that the respondents followed their own procedures, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present her side of the case (see, Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92; Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413; Matter of Comeau v Board of Educ., 160 AD2d 1150, 1151). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Herman A. Berliner, as Provost of Hofstra University, dated June 14, 1999, to terminate the petitioner’s employment as Chair of the Department of Speech Communication and Rhetorical Studies, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered March 1, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination to remove the petitioner as Chair of the Department of Speech Communication and Rhetorical Studies because of her failure to maintain “an effective communication climate” with her faculty, in violation, inter alia, of Hofstra University’s Faculty Policy Series No. 13, § I (C), was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, she was not hired unconditionally. According to the collective bargaining agreement, which was incorporated by reference into the petitioner’s contract of employment, she could be removed for “good cause” upon the [473]*473filing of a petition signed by two-thirds of the membership of her department, followed by a meeting between the dean and the department membership (see, Collective Bargaining Agreement article 21.4; Faculty Policy Series No. 13, § 8). The record discloses that the respondents followed their own procedures, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present her side of the case (see, Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92; Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 413; Matter of Comeau v Board of Educ., 160 AD2d 1150, 1151). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 472, 719 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drucker-v-hofstra-university-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack