Matter of Lai v. St. John's Univ.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Lai v. St. John's Univ.

2017 NY Slip Op 7601, 155 A.D.3d 627, 64 N.Y.S.3d 227

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2017

Docket2015-09540

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7601 (Matter of Lai v. St. John's Univ.) 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

Matter of Lai v. St. John's Univ., 2017 NY Slip Op 7601, 155 A.D.3d 627, 64 N.Y.S.3d 227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

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 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2011]; see also Tedeschi v Wagner Coll., 49 NY2d 652 [1980]), 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 Univ., 147 AD3d 1009 [2017]; Matter of Tomczak v Board of Educ., Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist., 144 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2016]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, 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 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 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2011]; see also Tedeschi v Wagner Coll., 49 NY2d 652 [1980]), 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 Univ., 147 AD3d 1009 [2017]; Matter of Tomczak v Board of Educ., Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist., 144 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2016]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7601, 155 A.D.3d 627, 64 N.Y.S.3d 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lai-v-st-johns-univ-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack