You are here: / / AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT...
, ,

AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT BASED UPON ANOTHER STUDENT’S (THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL’S) ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED; THE UNIVERSITY’S TITLE IX GRIEVANCE POLICY PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IS ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, ANY DETERMINATION BY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE BASED UPON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulled the university’s determination petitioner had violated the university’s “Community Rights and Responsibilities” by sexually assaulting the reporting individual. Petitioner did not deny kissing an touching the reporting individual, but contended all the interactions were consensual. The reporting individual did not testify at the hearing. The university’s Title IX grievance policy provides that, when the reporting individual does not testify and is not subject to cross-examination, the determination cannot be based upon any statement attributed to the reporting individual. Here statements by the reporting individual were the basis for the university’s determination:

Petitioner contends that he was denied due process because he was not afforded the opportunity to question the reporting individual, who did not testify at the hearing or otherwise submit to cross-examination. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree and conclude that annulment is required. “In general, there is a limited right to cross-examine an adverse witness in an administrative proceeding, and the right to cross-examine witnesses generally has not been considered an essential requirement of due process in school disciplinary proceedings” … . Nevertheless, “[i]t is well established that once having adopted rules or guidelines establishing the procedures to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion of a student, colleges or universities — both public and private — must substantially comply with those rules and guidelines” … . Matter of Bibler v State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 2025 NY Slip Op 03373, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: In a university disciplinary proceeding stemming from an allegation of sexual assault, the right to cross-examine the accuser is not considered an essential requirement of due process. However, the university is required to abide by its own rules. Here the rules stated that, where the accuser is absent from the hearing and is not cross-examined, the university’s determination cannot be based upon statements made by the accuser. The university’s failure to comply with that rule required that the determination be annulled.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE MILD PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO SEXUALLY HARASSED A FELLOW EMPLOYEE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY; MATTER REMITTED FOR IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY BY A NEW ARBITRATOR (THIRD DEPT).
Proof Requirements for Constructive Possession of Contraband Explained
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).
IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.
THE NOTICES INFORMED DEFENDANTS THAT THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ACCELERATED ON JANUARY 21, 2011; THE FACT THAT NOTICES REITERATING THAT SAME ACCELERATION DATE WERE SENT AS LATE AS NOVEMBER 2013 DID NOT CHANGE THE OPERATIVE DATE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN MARCH 2017 WAS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents

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 NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CALCULATION OF THE STUDENT TUITION TO... HERE FATHER MOVED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT...