State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 19, 2015 519120 

________________________________

In the Matter of SAMUEL 

MONNAT,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

AT CANTON,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 5, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Syracuse (James P. Evans of

counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D.

Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Clark, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence

County) to review a determination of respondent's Dean of

Academic Support Services which, among other things, placed

petitioner on disciplinary suspension.

Petitioner was a student at respondent and, in November

2013, was charged with violating six provisions of respondent's

Code of Student Conduct, Rights and Responsibilities (hereinafter

the Code). The charges stemmed from allegations that he

misrepresented the nature of the program devised for prospective

members of his fraternity and that he participated in the
-2- 519120 

physical and mental abuse of a prospective member. Petitioner

and the abused individual testified at the disciplinary hearing

that ensued, although petitioner declined to discuss the actual

events that formed the basis of the charges. Following the

hearing, the Student Faculty Hearing Board found petitioner to

have violated the Code as charged and, among other things,

suspended him through 2018. Petitioner filed an administrative

appeal that questioned the procedure employed by the Hearing

Board, the strength of the evidence against him and the penalty

imposed. The next day, respondent's Dean of Academic Support

Services upheld the determination of the Hearing Board in all

respects. Petitioner responded by commencing this CPLR article

78 proceeding to annul the disciplinary determination, which was

transferred to this Court (see CPLR 7804 [g]).

Petitioner advances numerous procedural challenges to the

determination, and those challenges are preserved for review

given that he raised them in his administrative appeal (see

Matter of Morales v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2011]). 

Nevertheless, "the record reflects that respondent substantially

complied with its procedures and provided petitioner adequate

notice of the charges against him" (Matter of Lampert v State

Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 116 AD3d 1292, 1294 [2014], lv denied 23

NY3d 908 [2014]; see Matter of Schwarzmueller v State Univ. of

N.Y. at Potsdam, 105 AD3d 1117, 1118-1119 [2013]). The Code

further provides that the Hearing Board was not bound by the

formal rules of evidence and was free to consider any information

"relevant to the charges [that would] contribute to the rendering

of an impartial and fair judgment." Accordingly, there was

nothing inherently improper in the Hearing Board's consideration

of evidence regarding petitioner's prior disciplinary history or

other uncharged conduct (see Matter of Kole v New York State

Educ. Dept., 291 AD2d 683, 686-687 [2002]). 

Petitioner, in fact, primarily questions whether the

evidence supported the finding that he violated the Code's

disciplinary provisions as charged. We cannot answer that

question upon the record before us, however, because neither the

Hearing Board nor the Dean of Academic Support Services provided

the requisite explanation as to why petitioner was held culpable. 

Petitioner asserts that respondent should not be given an
-3- 519120 

opportunity to correct this conceded error. Under the

circumstances, we agree with respondent that remittal is

appropriate so that the Hearing Board may "provide a statement to

petitioner detailing the factual findings supporting the

determination[] of guilt, after which petitioner shall be given

the opportunity to challenge the determination administratively"

(Matter of Boyd v State Univ. of N.Y. at Cortland, 110 AD3d 1174,

1176 [2013]; see Matter of Kalinsky v State Univ. of N.Y. at

Binghamton, 161 AD2d 1006, 1007 [1990]). As a result, we do not

reach petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the determination.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs,

and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not

inconsistent with this Court's decision.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court