Case Name: In the Matter of Richard Lai, Appellant, v. St. John's University, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-11-01
Citations: 155 A.D.3d 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Richard Lai, Appellant, v St. John’s University, Respondent.
Judges: Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Richard Lai, Appellant, v St. John’s University, Respondent.
[64 NYS3d 227]

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 subse quently 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.