Matter of Yong Won Choi v Columbia Univ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Yong Won Choi v Columbia Univ. 2012 NY Slip Op 32884(U) December 5, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102947/12 Judge: Peter H. Moulton Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY - . Index Number : 102947/2012 CHOI, YONGWON INDEX NO. VS. MOTION DATE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. ARTICLE 78 The following papers, numbered I to ,were read on this motion tolfor Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits INo(s). INo(s). IN O W " Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affldavits Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that t h h m h d s UNFILED JUDGMENT This judgment has not been entered by the County Clerk and notice of entry cannot be served b a s d hereon. To obtain entry, counsel or authorized representative must appear in person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (Roam 141B). Dated: I CHECKONE: . \I/ !" ,J.S.C. ..................................................................... NON-FINAL DISPOSITION ........................... MOTION IS:17GRANTED 0DEN~ED 0GRANTEDIN PART 0OTHER SUBMIT ORDER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ SETTLE ORDER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: DO NOT POST 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] Supreme Court: New Pork County Part 40B _________-__-_-cI---__l_______l In the Matter of the Applicatao YONG WON CHOI, Petitioner, For a Judgment under Article 78 of Civil Practice Law and Rules, he Index No. 102947/12 -againstCOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Respondent. 1 [* 3] Petitioner asserted that he had taken the examination, and that his answer book must have been lost b y the faculty. He was given a chance to re-take the exam in an administrative office at the school on January 27, 2012. Professor Whitt was present at the outset of the exam, and he found that petitioner had brought some disallowed materials into the room, which Whitt placed outside of the room where petitioner took the exam. At one point during the exam, Choi got up from his seat to retrieve the folder that contained the materials removed b y Whitt. was He was stopped b y one of the p r o c t o r s . attempting to get some materials that Choi avers that he were among the permissible materials he c o u l d use during t h e examination. Choi left the room twice to go to the bathroom. He asserts that he had gastroenteritis, which was brought on by the stress of the examination. On .the second occasion he was seen on the fourth floor of the building, which was at street level. Choi claims that he wanted to get outside for fresh air. On another occasion, respondent asserts that Choi attempted to leave the room to retrieve his calculator, which he left in the library. Choi disputes this account and states that he simply asked one of the 2 . [* 4] the model answers. The remaining two . .. exam . - questions were unanswered by Choi. Whitt communicated his concerns to University administrators. The University notified petitioner that it would hold a Dean's Disciplinary Hearing to investigate the incident. Respondent's personnel informed petitioner that he could submit a written statement at the hearing, and that he could review written materials prepared by the University about the incident called "Incident Core Information." prior to the hearing. Petitioner reviewed this material Petitioner was also informed of a web page where he could review the procedures of a Dean's Disciplinary Hearing, The hearing went forward on February 2. The hearing officers explained the procedures of the hearing. Petitioner attended and spoke at the hearing. After the hearing, the hearing offices spoke with the two proctors present while petitioner t o o k the make up exam. This was not the first Dean's Disciplinary Hearing where petitioner had had to answer charges of cheating. In 2007, and again in 2008, petitioner was found, after hearings, to have copied the work of other students and pass it o f f as his own. After the first finding of academic dishonesty, petitioner had been placed on probation. After the second finding, he had been temporarily suspended. 3 ~. . . . . [* 5] On February 8 , 2012, respondent notified petitioner in,writing that the hearing officers believed that petitioner had cheated on the examination. Due to the seriousness of this Offense, and due to petitioner's prior offenses, Columbia expelled Choi. Respondent notified petitioner of his right to appeal the dismissal to the Dean of the School of Engineering. Petitioner appealed, invoking two grounds: 1) new information not available a the time of the hearing and 2) the unnecessary severity of the penalty. He did not raise a third ground available to him: concerns about the process that may have changed the hearing's outcome. Petitioner's appeal was denied on F e b r u a r y 20, , 2 0 1 2 . He subsequently brought the instant proceeding. DISCUSSION In his pe ition, Choi asserts that the hearing failed to provide him with a fair process. Petitioner waived this argument as he failed to raise it on administrative appeal. (See Rauer v State Universitv of New Y o r k , 159 AD2d 835.) Even if he had preserved this argument, it is without merit. The record demonstrates that respondent followed the Dean's Disciplinary Rules that are provided to students in the Student Bulletin and on line. A private college or university is required to substantially adhere to its own rules in conducting student 4 [* 6] disciplinary hearings. (Harris v Trustees of Columbia Universitv, 62 NY2d 956 [adopting the dissent at the Appellate Division, 98 AD2d 58, 671 . ) Petitioner was afforded all the r'ights due him under the University's rules. The rules of evidence that bind courts in New York State do not control under Columbia's rules, Unlike the record in Basile v Albany Colleae, 279 AD2d 7 7 0 , the hearing officers in the instant matter had before them the statements of proctors who actually observed petitioner on the date of the exam, as well as the text of petitioner's answers to the examination. The hearing officers were also entitled to weigh the credibility of petitioner's statements at the hearing. Based on the record before it, respondent was not arbitrary and capricious, or in violation of any statute or the state or federal constitution, in determining that petitioner had cheated on the make up exam. (Galiani v Hofstra University, 118 AD2d 5 7 2 . ) The penalty o f dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offense (Sabin v State Universitv of New as to "shock the conscience." York, 92 A D 2 d 8 3 1 . ) Respondent's findings concerning petitioner's cheating on the make up exam would be sufficient to support h i s dismissal. Choi's prior academic offenses provide additional basis for the penalty. 5 [* 7] CONCLUSION For t h e reas1 s t a t e d it i s ADJUDGED that t h e p e t i t i o n i s denied, respondent s motion i s g r a n t e d , dismissed. Date: and t h e p r o c e e d i n g is T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e Order and Judgment of t h e c o u r t . December 5, 2 0 1 2 A.J.S.C. UNFILED JUDGMENT 7hisJudgmenthas not been entered by the Countv Clerk 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.