| Matter of Kelly v Northport Yacht Club, Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07845 [44 AD3d 858] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of William H. Kelly, Appellant, v NorthportYacht Club, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Christopher Modelewski, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondentNorthport Yacht Club, Inc., dated May 25, 2005, which, after a hearing, terminated thepetitioner's membership therein and permanently barred him from entry onto its premises, thepetitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), enteredMay 2, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An association may expel a member for a violation of its established rules for whichexpulsion is provided (see Matter of Purpura v Richmond County Country Club, 114AD2d 460, 461 [1985]). Moreover, "where the constitution and by-laws of a voluntaryassociation reasonably set forth grounds for expulsion and provide for a hearing upon notice tothe member, judicial review of such proceedings is unavailable, unless the reason for expulsion isnot a violation of the constitution or by-laws or is so trivial as to suggest that the action of theassociation was capricious or corrupt, or unless the association failed to administer its own rulesfairly" (Bloch v Veteran Corps. of Artillery, State of N.Y., 61 AD2d 772, 773 [1978];see Caposella v Pinto, 265 AD2d 362, 363 [1999]).
The petitioner's conduct provided a sufficient basis for the Board of Governors of theNorthport Yacht Club (hereinafter the board) to expel him. The board's determination that thepetitioner's conduct was "prejudicial to the interest and welfare of the Club" under its bylaws was[*2]not arbitrary and capricious.
"Moreover, the petitioner's mere allegation of bias on the part of the board will not suffice.'There must be a factual demonstration to support the allegation of bias and proof that theoutcome flowed from it' " (Matter ofMarandino v Westchester Country Club, Inc., 33 AD3d 800, 801 [2006], quotingMatter of Warder v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 53 NY2d 186, 197[1981], cert denied 454 US 1125 [1981]; see Caposella v Pinto, 265 AD2d 362[1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Krausmanand McCarthy, JJ., concur.