Matter of Doe v Trustees of Union Coll.
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 25, 2021
Supreme Court, Schenectady County
In the Matter of the Application of John Doe, Petitioner-Plaintiff, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and related relief
against
Trustees of Union College, Respondents-Defendants.
2018-2718
For petitioner-plaintiff: Susan Kaplan, Esq.
The Kaplan Law Office
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
For respondents: Michael Basile, Esq.
Higgins, Roberts & Suprunowicz, P.C.
1430 Balltown Road
Schenectady, NY 12309
Thomas D. Buchanan, J.
This matter comes before the Court on the application of Petitioner-Plaintiff ("Petitioner") to amend the Verified Petition and Complaint dated November 14, 2018. The proposed amendment seeks includes claims under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and New York's Human Rights Law. The remedies sought by Petitioner remain the same: an order and judgment 1) annulling the decision by Respondents-Defendants ("Respondents") to expel Petitioner, 2) reinstating him as a student at Respondents' institution, 3) amending Petitioner's academic record, and 4) awarding damages and attorneys' fees. Respondents have opposed the motion.
The parties agree on the basic standard to be applied to Petitioner's motion. An application for leave to amend a complaint is to be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise unless the proposed amendment is "wholly devoid of merit" (Bast Hatfield, Inc. v. [*2]Schalmont Cent. School Dist., 37 AD3d 987, 988 [3d Dept 2007]). Respondents do not assert either prejudice or surprise but argue that the claims sought to be asserted in the amended pleading lack merit. The Bast Hatfield opinion notes that, to avoid a "wholly devoid of merit" finding, a party seeking leave to amend must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to support the proposed claims. The required showing, however, is not so stringent as that required to avoid summary judgment; a verified pleading can suffice (Id.).
Petitioner has submitted a copy of the proposed Amended Verified Petition and Complaint with this motion, which is verified by Petitioner. The factual allegations found in the proposed pleading make out claims for discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Human Rights Law. While the pleading thus appears facially sufficient for purposes of Plaintiff's motion, Respondents point out that the Court has already ruled on Petitioner's expulsion and his claim for reinstatement in a prior Decision and Order issued on March 10, 2020. Respondents argue that Petitioner's proposed amendment attempts to relitigate these issues, which is precluded by the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Because of the somewhat unusual procedural posture of this proceeding, the point being raised by Respondents does not, strictly speaking, invoke either the res judicata or collateral estoppel. Both of those doctrines are based on the presence of a final adjudication from a prior proceeding — either of a claim (see Strauss v. Venettozzi, 186 AD3d 1862, 1963 [3d Dept 2020] [res judicata]) or an issue (see Beer v. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 189 AD3d 1916 [3d Dept 2020] [collateral estoppel]). The ruling asserted by Respondents was issued in this case, so that Respondents' argument actually asserts the third related doctrine: law of the case. Parties and their privies are precluded from relitigating an issue decided in an ongoing action where there previously was a full and fair opportunity to address the issue (Briggs v. Chapman, 53 AD3d 900 [3d Dept 2008]). The second petition filed in this case by Plaintiff, which resulted in the Court's March 10, 2020, Decision and Order, provided Petitioner with such an opportunity.
True, Petitioner's proposed claims under the Americas with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and Human Rights Law have not been the subject of prior litigation in this case. However, Petitioner's expulsion for academic dishonesty was upheld in the Court's prior Decision and Order, which has now been affirmed on appeal (Doe v. Trustees of Union College, — AD3d —, 2021 WL 2367166 [3d Dept 2021]). That ruling is the law of the case. The injunctive relief Petitioner seeks (annulling Respondents' decision to expel Petitioner, reinstating Petitioner as a student, and amending Petitioner's academic record) is therefore unavailable to Petitioner.
In addition, Petitioner cannot seek money damages on his claims under the ADA (see VanBrocklen v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 2009 WL 414053 [ND NY Feb. 18, 2009, No. 08-CV-254 (GLS/RFT)] [noting that it is "well established" in federal case law that money damages are unavailable under Title III of the ADA]).
Therefore, while Petitioner makes the necessary showing to amend the Verified Petition and Complaint to include new claims, some of the relief Petitioner seeks is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine and by federal case law. The parties' remaining contentions have been considered, but do not alter the outcome of this motion. Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the motion by petitioner-plaintiff John Doe seeking to amend the [*3]Verified Petition and Complaint dated November 14, 2018, is denied insofar as the proposed amendment seeks relief annulling Respondents' decision to expel Petitioner, reinstating Petitioner as a student, and amending Petitioner's academic record; and it is further
ORDERED, that the motion by John Doe seeking to amend the Verified Petition and Complaint dated November 14, 2018, is denied insofar as the proposed amendments seek money damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and it is further
ORDERED, that the motion by John Doe seeking to amend the Verified Petition and Complaint dated November 14, 2018, is granted in all other respects; and it is further
ORDERED, that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order, John Doe shall file with the County Clerk the original Amended Verified Petition and Complaint, as altered by this Decision and Order, and serve a copy of it on Respondents.
Dated: June 25, 2021
ENTER.
__________________________
Thomas D. Buchanan
Supreme Court Justice
Papers considered:
Notice of Motion; Affirmation of Susan Kaplan, Esq., with exhibits; Memorandum of Law; Affidavit of Michael E. Basile, Esq., with exhibits; Memorandum of Law; Reply Memorandum of Law; Affidavit of Michael E. Basile, with exhibit.
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.
