You are here: / / THE UNIVERSITY REVIEW BOARD’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE...
,

THE UNIVERSITY REVIEW BOARD’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE STUDENT CODE BY ENGAGING IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT REVERSED, VIOLATIONS DISMISSED, RECORD EXPUNGED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversing the University Review Board,  determined it was not demonstrated that petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, violated the Student Code by engaging in sexual misconduct. The only issue before the Board and the court was whether S.G., a fellow student, consented to sex. The facts are far to detailed to fairly summarize here. The majority concluded the evidence supported S.G.’s “affirmative consent” to sex. The Student Code violations were dismissed and all references to the Board’s finding are to be expunged from the petitioner’s academic record. Matter of P. C. v Stony Brook Univ., 2023 NY Slip Op 05604, Second Dept 11-8-23

 

You might also like
LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED, HEARING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED... THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF LICENSE PLATE READERS (LPR’S)...