Matter of Davis v Northern NY Sports Officials' Council

[*1] Matter of Davis v Northern NY Sports Officials' Council 2008 NY Slip Op 50235(U) [18 Misc 3d 1129(A)] Decided on February 11, 2008 Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County Demarest, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 11, 2008
Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County

In the Matter of the Petition of Jude Davis, Petitioner,

against

The Northern New York Sports Officials' Council, The Northern New York Soccer Officials' Association and its President, Michael Ruddy, The Northern New York Girls' Basketball Association and its President, Mark McCormick, Respondents.



126365



Appearances: O'Hara, O'Connell & Ciotoli (Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq., and Steven C. Judge, Esq. of counsel), attorneys for Petitioner; Hodgson Russ LLP (Christian J. Soller, Esq., of counsel) and Mark J. McCormick, Esq., attorneys for Respondents Ruddy and McCormick; Mark J. McCormick, Esq., attorney for Respondents Northern New York Sports Officials' Council, Northern New York Soccer Officials' Association, and Northern New York Girls' Basketball Association.

David R. Demarest, J.

Jude M. Davis ("Petitioner") commences this proceeding by Verified Petition filed December 17, 2007, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("C.P.L.R."), seeking a declaration that the actions of Respondents ("Respondents"): the Northern New York Soccer Officials Association ("NNYSOA") and its President, Michael Ruddy ("Ruddy"); the Northern New York Girls Basketball Officials' Association ("NNYGBOA") and its President Mark McCormick ("McCormick"); and, the Northern New York Sport Officials' Council ("NNYSOC"), are null and void on the grounds Respondents' actions were arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. In addition, Petitioner seeks a stay of the suspension handed down by Respondents. Respondents have not answered the Petition, but have moved for its dismissal, arguing: 1) none of Respondents is a "body or officer" as defined by C.P.L.R. Rule 7802(a), and C.P.L.R. Article 78 is not an available remedy to Petitioner; 2) the Petition fails to state a cause of action against NNYSOC and NNYGBOA; and, 3) [*2]Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Respondents further seek leave to answer the Petition on the merits should their motion be denied. Although not articulated as such, Respondents, by their motion, appear to raise an objection in point of law. Accordingly, if the motion is denied, C.P.L.R. Rule 7804(f) requires Respondents be permitted to file an answer to the Petition. Petitioner opposes the motion seeking dismissal.

It is necessary to first address the issue of the availability of C.P.L.R. Article 78 remedies to Petitioner. McCormick, President of NNYSOC and NNYGBOA, named as a Respondent, appears as counsel for all Respondents.[FN1] He argues, on behalf of himself and Respondents that they are "...voluntary, unincorporated associations of individuals, not public bodies or officers..." and, accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed. He further argues none of Respondents are quasi-governmental and they do not derive their power to act from New York State. He refers to NNYSOC as an "umbrella organization" formed for the primary purpose of negotiating terms and conditions of officiating employment amongst high schools.

NNYSOC is recognized, in the "Agreement Between Section X New York State Public High School Athletic Association And The Northern New York Sports Officials Council, June 2005 - June 2009" ("Agreement") as "...an association whose members are qualified officials who are also members of local officials' associations throughout the North Country and members in good standing of the State Officials' organizations..." and is the "...exclusive representative of all sports officials' organizations in the Section and will continue to act as the exclusive bargaining agent so long as it has fifty-one percent of officials' subdivisions under its aegis...." Section X is a geographic division of public schools in St. Lawrence and Franklin counties in northern New York State under the auspices of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc. ("NYSPHSAA"). NYSPHSAA is a domestic not-for-profit New York corporation comprised of member public and private high schools engaging in interscholastic athletic events. Respondents quote the "Agreement" language setting forth the membership of NNYSOC, i.e. "...members are qualified officials who are also members of local officials' associations" and suggest the definition includes only officials' organizations and not individual officials.

Attached as Exhibits "A" and "B" to Petitioner's Reply Affirmation dated January 9, 2008, are copies of the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations Certificates of Incorporation for both NYSPHSAA and NNYSOC, directly contradicting Respondents' claim they are "...voluntary, unincorporated associations of individuals ...."

Respondents do not dispute Petitioner's claim that NYSPHSAA "...operates under the aegis of the New York State Commissioner of Education." Furthermore, New York's Codes, Rules and Regulations ("N.Y.C.R.R."), Title 8, Chapter [*3]II, Subchapter G, Part 135, reflects governmental oversight over high school sports. See 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 135.1 (definitions) and 135.4( c) (7)(ii)(b).

Petitioner also relies on Caso v. New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., 78 AD2d 41 (4th Dep't 1980), in support of her claim that C.P.L.R. Article 78 judicial review is an available and appropriate remedy. Caso states: "An article 78 proceeding is the appropriate remedy to compel private corporations to fulfill obligations imposed upon them by statute as well as by their internal rules including adherence to their own hearing or review procedures."

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, cites Caso in Suburban Scholastic Council v. Section 2 of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., 23 AD3d 728 (3d Dep't 2005), which recognizes the appropriateness of C.P.L.R. Article 78 proceedings: "...courts should not interfere with the internal affairs, proceedings, rules and orders of a high school athletic association unless there is evidence of acts which are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. This determination rests on whether the...actions have a sound basis in reason and have a foundation in fact. In addition, there must be rational basis for the action taken." [citations omitted, internal quotations omitted]. Petitioner makes just such a claim.

Petitioner sufficiently connects the relationships between Respondents and NYSPHSAA to support a finding that Respondents' actions are subject to judicial scrutiny and review under C.P.L.R. Article 78 proceedings. NYSPHSAA is a not-for-profit domestic corporation operating within the purview of the New York State Education Commissioner. Section X is a geographic division of NYSPHSAA. NYSPHSAA and its geographic division identified as Section X entered into a written agreement with NNYSOC, a not-for-profit domestic corporation acting on behalf of "all local high school sports officials organizations" [page 3, ¶11, Affirmation/Memorandum of Law of Mark McCormick, dated December 31, 2007], including NNYSOA, its President, Respondent Ruddy, NNYGBOA and its President, Respondent McCormick, to provide officials for interscholastic sporting events to Section X NYSPHSAA member schools. Petitioner is a member official of NNYSOA, NNYGBOA and NNYSOC. Individual officials and the officials' organizations are members of NNYSOC by definition. For these reasons, Respondents' first argument for dismissal is without merit.

Next, Respondents claim Petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies and, therefore, the C.P.L.R. Article 78 Petition should be dismissed. Such a claim is disingenuous at best. Petitioner was notified by Ruddy on October 7, 2007, that certain complaints involving her conduct as an official were received by the NNYSOA, and they were being investigated by the professional committee at a meeting to be held on October 10, 2007. Petitioner was at the committee meeting, but the meeting was not a hearing. Petitioner was not provided any information, other than the letter notice, in advance of the October 10th meeting. By letter dated October 12, 2007, Petitioner was advised by Ruddy that the professional committee recommended [*4]suspension in excess of one year, from October 15, 2007, to November 1, 2008. In his October 12th letter, Ruddy indicates the "...Executive Board has determined that the recommendation of the Professional Committee should be upheld." Petitioner, by letter to Ruddy dated October 15, 2007,[FN2] states: "I am appealing..." the executive board's decision of October 10, 2007. At some point after her letter noting her appeal, she was given copies of some documents.[FN3] In an undated letter to Petitioner from Ruddy, he indicates the executive board of the NNYSOA would hold an "e-mail conference" to consider her appeal. In the same letter, however, Ruddy states: "In conclusion, the Executive Board concurs with the recommendation rendered by the Professional Committee."

The NNYSOA "Constitution and By-Laws Revised October 2006" ("NNYSOA Constitution")[FN4], outlines "Discipline, Grievance and Appeal" in Article VII. The procedures provide members an opportunity to present "...his or her case to the Professional Committee for deliberation..." prior to "...the imposition of any disciplinary action..." against the member. Despite the procedures governing the appeals process, Ruddy's letter of October 12, 2007, indicates the executive board of NNYSOA considered the actions taken by the professional committee and determined the recommendation for suspension should be upheld. The executive board's concurrence preceded any true opportunity for Petitioner to appeal, to be heard, and "to rebut the charges, presenting evidences and/or documentation substantiating his/her appeal," as provided for in NNYSOA Constitution, Article VII, Section III.D.

NNYSOA's Constitution does not provide for "email" conferences. It is difficult to comprehend how such a conference, if conducted by "email," could afford a member due process protections of the appeal process. On the contrary, the NNYSOA Constitution requires the appeal to be addressed "...at the next scheduled Executive Board meeting...." Respondents provide no proof of compliance with either the provisions of the Agreement between Section X NYSPHSAA and NNYSOC, nor of the NNYSOA Constitution, nor, for that matter, the NNYGBOA provisions, if any, relative to its own decision to suspend Petitioner from officiating girls' basketball games.[FN5] [*5]Accordingly, Respondents cannot be heard to claim it was Petitioner who failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Her attempts to do so were met with non-compliance by NNYSOA.

Lastly, Respondents seek dismissal against NNYSOC and NNYGBOA. By letter of November 19, 2007, Ed Goetz ("Goetz"), Chairperson of the professional committee of NNYGBOA, notified Petitioner she was "ineligible to receive assignments" to officiate girls' basketball as long as the NNYSOA imposed sanction is in effect. Goetz directly refers to the Agreement between Section X NYSPHSAA and NNYSOC as requiring Petitioner's suspension from officiating girls' basketball games. Petitioner requests review of the actions of the NNYSOA and by extension, the NNYSOC and NNYGBOA, and that the determination be annulled, reversed and set aside, and the suspension be stayed. Contrary to the assertion that there is no cause of action against NNYGBOA and NNYSOC, Petitioner sufficiently pleads causes of action against all Respondents, whose actions she claims were arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.

Respondents motion for dismissal of the C.P.L.R. Article 78 Petition is denied. In accordance with C.P.L.R. 7804, Respondents' request to file an Answer to the Petition is granted, and it shall be filed within twenty (20) days. Petitioner's application for a stay of the suspension is granted pursuant to C.P.L.R. 7805, and the imposition of the suspension is temporarily vacated, pending further Order of this Court.

SO ORDERED

DATED: February 11, 2008, at Chambers, Canton, New York.

DAVID DEMAREST, J.S.C.

ENTER:

{Decision & Order, and moving papers filed} Footnotes

Footnote 1:More than a week following the motion return date and receipt of all submissions, Christian Soller, Esq., of counsel to Hodgson Russ LLP, filed a Notice of Appearance and Demand for al Documents on behalf of Respondents Ruddy and McCormick. Hodgson Russ and/or Soller have made no other submissions.

Footnote 2:Petitioner's letter indicates it was copied to the Section X coordinator, members of the executive board and professional committee.

Footnote 3:It is not clear if the documents eventually provided to Petitioner, were relied on by the professional committee or the executive committee in deciding Petitioner's suspension.

Footnote 4:A copy of the NNYSOA Constitution was supplied by Petitioner under cover of counsel's letter dated January 14, 2008, after it was referred to by Respondents but not provided by them.

Footnote 5:No documentation is provided by any party specific to NNYGBOA, with the exception of the Goetz's letter reference to the provisions relative to members in good standing and the "good character clause" in the Agreement between Section X NYSPHSAA and NNYSOC, of which NNYGBOA is an officials' organization member.