You are here: / / RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE...
, , ,

RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing the expulsion of petitioner-student and reinstating the student in good standing, determined the respondent state college had withheld exculpatory evidence which indicated petitioner did not carve a racial epithet on an elevator door. Two students claimed to have seen petitioner carve the epithet. Another student sent an email stating he had seen the epithet on the door before the students arrived for the semester. That email was never disclosed to the petitioner:

Article III of Section 4 of respondent’s Code of Conduct enumerates the due process rights of students charged with violations. In addition to the right to a fair hearing, a charged student “has the right to copies of written reports pertinent to the case . . .” Respondent’s failure to turn over exculpatory evidence in its possession prior to the hearing violated its own policies and procedures, thereby violating petitioner’s due process rights … . Now, in hindsight, it cannot be said that petitioner received a fair hearing where evidence tending to prove his innocence was withheld.

Accordingly, after our independent review of the record as a whole, we now find that this exculpatory evidence, the extensive alibi evidence as well as other objective evidence of petitioner’s innocence render the charges unsupportable as a matter of law thus warranting vacatur of the expulsion penalty, expungement of all references to the underlying charges contained in petitioner’s academic record and his reinstatement as a student in good standing … . Matter of Mozdziak v State Univ. of N.Y. Mar. Coll., 2022 NY Slip Op 06759, First Dept 11-29-22

Practice Point: In this misconduct proceeding in a state college, the student was entitled to due process. The college’s failure to turn over exculpatory evidence required vacation of the expulsion penalty and reinstatement of the student in good standing.

 

You might also like
IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED SHORT DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
THE DUCT ON THE FLOOR WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEMOLITION WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 200 DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLAINTIFF IN DEFENDANT GYM’S STEAM ROOM WAS FORESEEABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AS A MATTER OF LAW; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR ASSAULTS (FIRST DEPT).
Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring
MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND, WHO LIVED WITH MOTHER AND DAUGHTER FOR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE ABUSING THE DAUGHTER, MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD” AND WAS THEREFORE A PROPER PARTY IN THIS ABUSE/NEGLECT PROCEEDING; COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEFENDANT PLUMBING COMPANY LIABLE FOR THE LEAK WHICH... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS OR CONTROVERT THE...