IN RE: Ilan SAFIT (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered December 5, 2016, which denied the petition challenging respondent's determination to deny petitioner tenure, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's decision to deny petitioner tenure was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Loebl v. New York Univ., 255 A.D.2d 257, 259, 680 N.Y.S.2d 495 [1st Dept. 1998];  Matter of Fruehwald v. Hofstra Univ., 82 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 920 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2d Dept. 2011] ).  Contrary to petitioner's argument, he received due process during the tenure application process.  In response to petitioner's complaints regarding alleged procedural issues, respondent remanded his application to the stage where the issue arose, and allowed his application to proceed anew.

Furthermore, the determination not to recommend promotion or tenure was supported by the evidence, including the affidavits of multiple faculty members and officials, which demonstrated that petitioner's application received the benefit of multiple reviews by differently constituted faculty committees, was given full and fair consideration, and was a proper exercise of academic judgment (see Pauk v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 62 A.D.2d 660, 664, 406 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 1978], affd 48 N.Y.2d 930, 425 N.Y.S.2d 92, 401 N.E.2d 214 [1979] ).  We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions, including that he was denied tenure because of his age, and find them unavailing.