New York Law Review

Kickertz v. New York University, 25 N.Y.3d 943 (2015): Due Process in Student Disciplinary Proceedings at Private Universities

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

25 N.Y.3d 943 (2015)

Private universities, when disciplining students, must substantially adhere to their published rules, but are not required to provide the full due process rights afforded in a governmental setting.

Summary

This case concerns a student, Katie Kickertz, who was expelled from New York University (NYU) following a finding of academic misconduct. Kickertz sought reinstatement, a degree, and attorneys’ fees through an Article 78 proceeding. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Appellate Division erred by failing to remand the case to allow NYU to file an answer, as required by CPLR 7804(f). The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division should have remanded the case because the facts presented did not preclude the existence of triable issues, and NYU should be permitted to answer the petition. The Court emphasized that private educational institutions must substantially observe their published rules when disciplining students, but are not held to the same due process standards as governmental entities.

Facts

Katie Kickertz, a student at New York University’s College of Dentistry, was expelled due to academic misconduct. Kickertz initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, a degree, and attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court dismissed Kickertz’s petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, granted the petition, and ordered NYU to reinstate Kickertz. NYU appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

1. Supreme Court: Dismissed Kickertz’s petition.

2. Appellate Division: Reversed the Supreme Court decision, reinstated the petition, and granted Kickertz’s requests.

3. Court of Appeals: Modified the Appellate Division’s order, remitting the case back to the Supreme Court.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Appellate Division erred by failing to remand the case to Supreme Court to allow NYU to file an answer under CPLR 7804(f).

Holding

1. Yes, because the Appellate Division should have remanded the case as triable issues of fact existed that warranted NYU being able to file an answer.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on the interpretation and application of CPLR 7804(f), which requires a court to permit a respondent to answer a petition in an Article 78 proceeding if a motion to dismiss is denied. The Court cited precedent indicating an exception if the facts are fully presented, and no dispute of facts or prejudice would result from the failure to require an answer. In this case, the court found that the facts were not so clear, as “triable issues of fact exist with regard to whether NYU substantially complied with its established disciplinary procedures.” The Court reiterated that a private educational institution, such as NYU, is not required to adhere to the full panoply of due process rights afforded in a governmental setting, but must substantially observe its published rules.

The Court’s decision emphasizes the procedural rights available to a private university in defending against a student’s challenge to disciplinary actions. It underscores the balance between protecting student rights and allowing educational institutions to maintain their standards and enforce their rules. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial review in student discipline cases, emphasizing deference to institutional procedures as long as they are substantially followed.

The Court also declined to address other issues raised by the parties and decided by the lower courts, due to its disposition of the appeal.

More ARTICLES