| Matter of Brockport Student Govt. v State Univ. of N.Y. atBrockport |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01099 [136 AD3d 1418] |
| February 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Brockport Student Government et al.,Respondents, v State University of New York at Brockport et al.,Appellants. |
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel),for respondents-appellants.
Law Offices of Pullano & Farrow, PLLC, Rochester (Christian Valentino ofcounsel), for petitioners-respondents.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County(Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered August 15, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78. The judgment granted the petition in part.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified onthe law by denying that part of the petition seeking to annul respondents' determinationto the extent that respondents refused to certify that part of petitioners' proposed budgetallocating $49,800 of mandatory student activity fees to employ a business manager, andas modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioners, members of the SUNY Brockport student government(BSG), commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondents'determination to modify petitioners' proposed 2014-2015 budget for the allocation ofmandatory student activity fees. BSG had submitted a budget that included a proposedallocation of approximately $50,000 to finance the renewal of an existing position, i.e., apersonal business manager, to assist with BSG's internal operations. Upon review of thebudget, respondents determined that BSG's proposed budget allocation for a businessmanager was inconsistent "with the practices, policies, and procedures used by the rest ofthe [SUNY Brockport] campus" and that BSG's proposed $49,800 salary for a businessmanager was excessive and not consistent with, inter alia, other SUNY Brockportorganizations. Respondents therefore replaced that allocation with an allocation for BSGto instead retain Brockport Auxiliary Services Corporation (BASC), which had offeredto serve as BSG's business manager at a cost savings of approximately $20,000.Thereafter, respondents approved the modified budget, thereby requiring BSG to retainBASC as its business manager for the 2014-2015 academic year. BSG and its membersfiled the instant article 78 petition, asserting that respondents' refusal to certify the budgetas submitted was arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court found that under 8 NYCRR302.14, respondents lacked the authority to limit who BSG hired and stated that "[t]hefact that some other student [*2]organizations are contentwith the services that BASC offers is not relevant to this discussion as long as the salarypaid to BSG's business manager is not wholly out of proportion to the services rendered."The court determined that the proposed BSG salary was not "wholly out of proportion,"reversed respondents' determination, and ordered that petitioners be allowed to retain abusiness manager of their choosing. We conclude that the court erred in determining thatrespondents' denial of BSG's budget allocation for a business manager was arbitrary andcapricious, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly.
Initially, we reject respondents' contention that the court applied the incorrectstandard of review. "It is well established that '[j]udicial review of an administrativedetermination is limited to whether the administrative action is arbitrary and capricious orlacks a rational basis' " (Matter of Walker v State Univ. of N.Y. [Upstate Med. Univ.],19 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 713 [2005]). Here, althoughthe court did not use the term "arbitrary and capricious" or "lacks a rational basis" in itsjudgment, we conclude that the court implicitly applied the correct standard (cf.Matter of Restituyo v Berbary, 278 AD2d 859, 859 [2000]).
We reject respondents' further contention that it had authority to direct petitioners toretain BASC. There is no dispute that 8 NYCRR 302.14 specifically controls theapproval, collection, and expenditure of mandatory student activity fees, and vests BSGwith exclusive authority to propose budgets regarding the allocation of those funds. If aproposed budget complies with section 302.14 (c) (3), respondents "shall so certify" thebudget as proposed by BSG (8 NYCRR 302.14 [c] [1] [i]). BSG is permitted to expendfunds on "salaries for professional nonstudent employees of the student government tothe extent that they are consistent with hiring practices and compensation rates of othercampus-affiliated organizations" (8 NYCRR 302.14 [c] [3] [xiv]). The regulationcontains no other restriction on the allocation of funds towards salaries other than thegeneral requirement that any allocation must support the "benefit of the campuscommunity" (8 NYCRR 302.14 [c] [3]). The plain language of the regulation does notsupport respondents' position that it has the authority to compel BSG to hire BASC.
We agree with respondents, however, that the court erred in determining that theirdenial of BSG's budget allocation for a business manager was arbitrary and capricious. Itis well established that "[a]n action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken withoutsound basis in reason or regard to the facts . . . An agency's determination isentitled to great deference and, [i]f the [reviewing] court finds that the determination issupported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the courtconcludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by theagency" (Matter of Thompson vJefferson County Sheriff John P. Burns, 118 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2014] [internalquotation marks omitted]). Here, we conclude that respondents' discretionarydetermination to reject BSG's proposed $49,800 salary for a business manager which wasbased on a comparison of the "hiring practices and compensation rates of othercampus-affiliated organizations" (8 NYCRR 302.14 [c] [3] [xiv]), is supported by arational basis.
The remaining contentions raised by the parties are unpreserved and, in any event,are without merit. Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and DeJoseph,JJ.