Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ZETA CHI ZETA FRATERNITY, INC., PETITIONER, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO, RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner seeks to annul a determination finding it responsible for violations of respondent's student code of conduct arising from incidents of hazing and expelling it from respondent's campus.
Petitioner contends that respondent denied it due process by charging it with vague “historical” allegations based on complaints of anonymous individuals. We reject that contention. Although the charges did not include any dates for the conduct, the evidence presented at the hearing addressed specific incidents from spring 2022 and spring 2023. Indeed, petitioner's president admitted at the beginning of the hearing that petitioner was adequately apprised of the charges against it. Further, petitioner's president indicated that he knew the identity of the complainant. Thus, we conclude that respondent's failure to identify the complainant and other whistleblowers did not have any impact on petitioner's opportunity to defend itself (see generally Matter of Fitzgerald v Libous, 44 NY2d 660, 661 [1978]; Matter of Agudio v State Univ. of N.Y., 164 AD3d 986, 990 [3d Dept 2018]).
We further conclude that, contrary to petitioner's contention, respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence. The evidence considered by respondent, including petitioner's admission to some of the charges, constituted “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion” that petitioner violated respondent's student code as charged by respondent (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Finally, the penalty is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 854 [2001]; see Matter of Klockowski v State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. at Plattsburgh, 182 AD3d 725, 728 [3d Dept 2020]).
Entered: April 25, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 209
Decided: April 25, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)