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: JUAN CARLOS PENA, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT, AND SECTION III OF THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the amended petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Respondent New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc. (Association) appeals from a judgment granting the amended petition seeking to annul the determination denying petitioner's application to extend his eligibility for athletic competition pursuant to 8 NYCRR 135.4(c)(7)(ii)(b)(1). We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the amended petition. We note at the outset that this appeal is not moot despite the fact that petitioner has graduated and the school year for which he sought extended eligibility has passed, because the issue raised “has public importance, relates to a concern of public interest, and is likely to recur” (Matter of Gerard v Section III of N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Assn., 210 A.D.2d 938, 939).
“[I]t is well settled that ‘[t]he courts should not interfere with the internal affairs, proceedings, rules and orders of a high school athletic association unless there is evidence of acts which are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion’ ․ Whether the acts are arbitrary and capricious ‘relates to whether ․ the committees' actions have a sound basis in reason and have a foundation in fact ․ The test is whether there is a rational basis' “ (id. at 939–940). We agree with the Association that the determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The record establishes that there is a rational basis for the determination denying petitioner's application for extended eligibility, inasmuch as petitioner failed to proffer sufficient evidence that he was precluded from participating in sports due to “illness, accident, or similar circumstances beyond [his] control” (8 NYCRR 135.4[c][7][ii][b][1][i]; see Pratt v New York State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Assn., 133 Misc.2d 679, 682–684).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–02223
Decided: June 20, 2014
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)