WIN! NY COURT of Appeals Rules For Acc’d Student and Against Purchase College SUNY

The petitioner, a student at Purchase College of the State University of New York (hereinafter Purchase), was charged with committing four violations of the student code of conduct. The respondent Purchase violated the petitioner’s right to due process and abused its discretion when it denied his timely request for a three-hour adjournment of the administrative hearing so that his attorney could attend. Given the gravity of the administrative charges facing the petitioner, and the threat of additional criminal charges stemming from an active police investigation, the petitioner’s right to secure the assistance of his designated attorney at the administrative hearing was fundamental. This right was wrongfully extinguished by Purchase when it summarily refused to accommodate the petitioner’s request for this exceedingly minimal delay.

In light of the potential impact of the administrative hearing, the failure to grant a three-hour adjournment was no ordinary administrative determination with consequences confined to the administrative realm, but a decision which deprived the petitioner of his right to due process. Every participant in an administrative proceeding is entitled to be treated fairly and in accordance with due process, regardless of the nature of the charges lodged against them. In this case, the petitioner was facing the most severe punishment that could be imposed on a student: permanent expulsion. In addition, the petitioner had already been interviewed by police investigators, the District Attorney had already begun collecting evidence, and it was clear that a parallel criminal investigation was ongoing. Under such circumstances, the petitioner’s right to have an attorney assist him at the hearing was “a fundamental one”.

Purchase contends in its brief that it providently exercised its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s “last-minute request to postpone the hearing.” However, the petitioner’s request was not untimely.  It is undisputed that the petitioner had not sought or received any prior extensions of time, and Purchase’s policy does not impose any time limits as to when such a request may be made. Given that Purchase refused to speak with the petitioner’s attorney until Purchase received a FERPA release form specific to the attorney, which the petitioner provided on Sunday, October 5, there is no basis to conclude that the request was untimely. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the requested three-hour delay would not have come close to pushing the disposition of the charges beyond the 60-day window contemplated in Purchase’s Sexual and Interpersonal Violence Policy.

The only reason offered by Purchase to justify its denial of the request for a three-hour delay was that the request was denied “due to the availability of the people involved in the hearing.” I cannot agree that this conclusory explanation, without more, is enough to justify the denial of the minimal delay requested here… Although the petitioner’s attorney would not have been permitted to directly participate at the hearing, he would have been permitted to advise the petitioner during it. The record demonstrates that his assistance would have been beneficial and might well have resulted in a more favorable record.

In sum, the requested three-hour delay in this case was exceedingly minimal and the record does not support Purchase’s contention, raised in its brief, that it was “unable to grant the postponement.” Given the gravity of the administrative charges facing the petitioner, and the threat of additional criminal charges stemming from an active police investigation, Purchase abused its discretion and violated the petitioner’s right to due process when it denied his timely request for a three-hour adjournment of the administrative hearing so that his attorney could attend…the petition must be granted, the administrative determination annulled, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

law.justia.com/cases law.justia./new-york/court-of-appeals

 

 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter