At page 1343 Due process rights in higher education disciplinary proceedings4 citing cases
- Matter of Rodriguez v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2021 NY Slip Op 01679 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021).published Although " 'there is no general constitutional right to discovery in . . . administrative proceedings' " ( Matter of Weber v State Univ. of N.Y., Coll. at Cortland , 150 AD3d 1429, 1431 [3d Dept 2017]), "due process entitles a student accu…
- Matter of Neelman v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2021 NY Slip Op 01677 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021).published Contrary to petitioner's further contention, respondent's written determinations regarding the basis for its findings did not violate petitioner's right to due process inasmuch as they contained sufficient detail "to permit [petitioner] to…
- Matter of Mavrogian v. State Univ. of N.Y. At Buffalo, 2020 NY Slip Op 4628 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published Indeed, "[i]n a disciplinary proceeding at a public institution of higher education, due process entitles a student accused of misconduct to a statement detailing the factual findings and the evidence relied upon by the decision-maker in r…
- Matter of Brucato v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 6291 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2019).published Likewise, respondent's written determinations following both the administrative hearing and appeal did not violate petitioner's right to due process inasmuch as they contained sufficient detail "to permit [petitioner] to effectively challe…
At page 1342 Meeting due process requirements in administrative proceedings5 citing cases
- Ponichtera v. State Univ. of New York, 149 A.D.3d 1565 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published Here, we conclude that those basic requirements of due process were met (see Budd, 133 AD3d at 1342-1343; Matter of Schwarzmueller v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 105 AD3d 1117 , 1119 [2013]).
- Ponichtera, Kristen v. Univ. at Buffalo, No. TP 16-00608 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Apr. 28, 2017).publishedHere, we conclude that those basic requirements of due process were met (see Budd, 133 AD3d at 1342-1343; Matter of Schwarzmueller v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 105 AD3d 1117 , 1119). -2- 484 TP 16-00608 Moreover, where, as here, “a un…
- Matter of Green v. City Univ. of N.Y., 145 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedPetitioner was afforded the opportunity to appear at the hearing, which he chose not to attend, detailed written determinations, an administrative appeal process, and judicial review via CPLR article 78 (see Budd, 133 AD3d at 1342; Matter…
At page 1341 cited at this page1 citing case
- Reside Capital Partners, LLC v. Clar, 2024 NY Slip Op 03637 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).published Furthermore, defendant established that he did not receive personal notice of the summons in time to defend the action inasmuch as he did not reside at the address where copies of the summons and complaint were affixed and subsequently mai…
v.
Roy A. Brown, Respondent
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered June 23, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), contending that defendant was never in default and thus that Supreme Court erred in entertaining defendant’s motion. We reject that contention, inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant did not appear at the inquest on damages, which resulted in the entry of the amended judgment that was the subject of defendant’s motion. Also contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion, upon determining that defendant established “a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a meritorious defense” (Calad v Allied Interstate, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 108 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2013]; see Matter of Reilly v City of Rome, 114 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2014]). Here, after granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability and prior to the inquest on damages at which defendant failed to appear, the court sua sponte relieved defendant’s counsel without providing notice to defendant that it had done so, and it is undisputed that defendant was unaware that he was no longer represented or required to appear at the damages inquest. Defendant also demonstrated a meritorious defense to the amount of damages sought by plaintiff. Plaintiff sought and was awarded nearly $250,000 based on damages to her rental property caused by defendant, but defendant demonstrated that he at one time had an option to purchase that rental property for $65,000. As the court noted in granting defendant’s motion, it was “quite obvious that the award [was] excessive and disproportionate to the value of the property and it may well appear that plaintiff’s uncontested proof was quite a bit exaggerated.” Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.