| Matter of Tahmisyan v Stony Brook Univ. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04800 [74 AD3d 829] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael Tahmisyan, Respondent, v StonyBrook University, Appellant. |
—[*1] Shebitz Berman Cohen & Delforte, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Julia R. Cohen of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, to prohibit the admission intoevidence of certain audiotape recordings at an impending academic disciplinary hearing, StonyBrook University appeals, by permission, from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (Hart, J.), dated August 5, 2009, which, in effect, denied its cross motion to dismiss theproceeding or, in the alternative, to change the venue of the proceeding from Queens County toSuffolk County, in effect, required it to allow the petitioner to have an attorney fully participatein the impending academic disciplinary hearing, and enjoined it from removing the petitionerfrom its student housing pending further action of the Supreme Court, and (2) so much of anorder of the same court entered October 1, 2009, as stayed the academic disciplinary hearinguntil the petitioner obtained an attorney to represent him.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 5, 2009, as enjoined StonyBrook University from removing the petitioner from its student housing pending further action ofthe Supreme Court is dismissed, as that portion of the order was vacated, as academic, in thesubsequent order entered October 1, 2009, since the petitioner had, in the interim, matriculated atQueens College; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated August 5, 2009, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, thatbranch of the cross motion of Stony Brook University which was to dismiss the proceeding isgranted, that branch of the cross motion which was to change the venue of the action is denied asacademic, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered October 1, 2009, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to Stony Brook University.[*2]
Stony Brook University (hereinafter Stony Brook)initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner based upon allegations that he hadviolated provisions of the Stony Brook Student Conduct Code. Before that proceeding couldbegin, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, toprohibit Stony Brook from introducing into evidence certain audiotape recordings. During thecourse of the instant proceeding, the Supreme Court ordered that the petitioner have full legalrepresentation, as opposed to merely an advisor, at the disciplinary proceeding.
"[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, courts are constrained not to interject themselvesinto ongoing administrative proceedings until final resolution of those proceedings before theagency" (Galin v Chassin, 217 AD2d 446, 447 [1995]). Here, the instant proceeding waspremature, as Stony Brook had yet to hold the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Williams[New York State Dept. of Health, Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct], 245 AD2d 1014[1997]; Schachter v Tomaselli, 105 AD2d 779 [1984]; Matter of Schuyler v StateUniv. of N.Y. at Albany, 31 AD2d 273, 275 [1969]). Therefore, the issues of whether therecordings should be permitted into evidence or whether the petitioner is entitled to full legalrepresentation at the disciplinary proceeding are not yet ripe for judicial review (seegenerally Matter of Cold Spring Harbor Area Civic Assn. v Suffolk County Dept. of HealthServs., 305 AD2d 499 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied thepetition and dismissed the proceeding.
In light of our determination, that branch of Stony Brook's cross motion which was to changethe venue of the action from Queens County to Suffolk County has been rendered academic.Rivera, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.