| Matter of Mudge v Huxley |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09311 [79 AD3d 1395] |
| December 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Randy Mudge, Petitioner, v Carole F. Huxley,as Interim Commissioner of Education of the State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Zainab A. Chaudhry of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of theSupreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which suspendedpetitioner's teaching and school administrator certifications for one year.
Petitioner, who was certified as a teacher and school administrator, requested a hearing in responseto a notice from respondent that a substantial question existed as to his moral character. When thehearing panel determined that petitioner lacked the good moral character necessary to be a teacher inthis state and recommended suspension of his certificates for one year, petitioner appealed torespondent, who modified the findings of the panel but affirmed the recommended penalty. Petitionerthen commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent's determination, andSupreme Court transferred it to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).
Our review of a determination rendered by respondent in this context is limited to whether it isarbitrary and capricious, irrational, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pearlman v Mills, 24 AD3d837, 837-838 [2005]; Matter of Donlon v [*2]Mills, 260AD2d 971, 972 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 752 [1999]; Matter of Groht v Sobol,198 AD2d 679, 681-682 [1993], lv dismissed and denied 83 NY2d 961 [1994]; Matterof Cargill v Sobol, 165 AD2d 131, 133 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 854 [1991]; but see Matter of Moro v Mills, 70 AD3d1269, 1270 [2010]; Matter of Welcher v Sobol, 227 AD2d 770, 772 [1996]). Althoughtransfer was improper because the appropriate standard of review is not whether the determination issupported by substantial evidence, we will nevertheless retain the proceeding and resolve the issues inthe interest of judicial economy (see Matter of Stedronsky v Sobol, 175 AD2d 373, 374 n[1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 864 [1991]).
Here, petitioner admitted that, in July 1989, when he was 28 years old and a high school physicaleducation teacher, coach and athletic director, he had sexual intercourse with an 18-year-old formerstudent in his vehicle after taking her to a New York Mets baseball game shortly after graduation. Healso admitted that, in July 1992, then 31 years old and still employed in the same capacity, he hadsexual intercourse with another 18-year-old former student in his vehicle after taking her to a Metsgame shortly after graduation. Petitioner taught both girls during high school, coached them as membersof the high school girls' soccer team, coached high school boys' teams for which both girls served asstatisticians and, prior to graduation in the spring of these girls' respective senior years, attended Metsgames with each of them. Based upon this pattern of behavior in affording the girls preferentialtreatment while they were students, including the pre-graduation trips to Mets games, respondentconcluded that petitioner had groomed them for a sexual relationship while they were students and then,shortly after they graduated, exploited the relationships that he had cultivated.
Petitioner's primary contention is that respondent's conclusion regarding grooming of the studentsprior to graduation is irrational. He argues that he did not invite the students to the pre-graduation Metsgames, each of the various factors considered by respondent is innocent by itself, and his character isunassailable. We cannot agree. Given the evidence of petitioner's pattern of behavior with both girls,respondent's determination that petitioner was engaged in grooming and that he lacks the requisitemoral character to be a teacher in this state is supported by a rational basis (see Matter of Groht vSobol, 198 AD2d at 681-682; Matter of Stedronsky v Sobol, 175 AD2d at 374-375).To the extent that petitioner disputes the findings that he invited the girls to the games, we find no reasonto disturb respondent's resolution of conflicts in the testimony (see Matter of Land v Commissionerof Educ. of State of N.Y., 174 AD2d 927, 929 [1991]). Further, petitioner's claim that hischaracter is unassailable fails in light of the hearing testimony impugning his reputation for integrity.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions concerning the rulings of the Hearing Officerand the penalty imposed, and we find them to be similarly without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.