Doe v. State Univ. of N.Y., Binghamton Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 00088

Plaintiff, a former SUNY Binghamton student, was suspended for two semesters following a finding of sexual assault and failure to comply with university officials.
Plaintiff's internal appeal was denied on June 5, 2015.
Plaintiff filed a summons with notice on June 6, 2018, later retaining counsel and filing an amended summons and a complaint (Nov. 12, 2018) alleging breach of contract, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Human Rights Law claims and seeking reinstatement, expungement, injunctive relief, and damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting among other defenses that the action was time‑barred; Supreme Court dismissed the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(5), finding the claims were properly reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding and thus subject to a four‑month limitations period.
Appellate Division affirmed, holding the complaint challenged university disciplinary procedures and determination (properly addressed via Article 78) and was filed well beyond the four‑month limitation; the court also noted that even a three‑year limitations period for statutory claims would not salvage timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle: whether claims must be brought as a CPLR Article 78 proceeding rather than a plenary action	Plaintiff framed claims as plenary (Title IX, §1983, damages and injunctive relief) and sought de novo relief	Defendants argued the core relief sought challenged an administrative disciplinary determination and thus must proceed via Article 78	Court held the claims challenged the disciplinary determination and procedures and were properly reviewable in Article 78
Statute of limitations: whether the action is time‑barred	Plaintiff filed in 2018, contending plenary form or statutory causes of action allow longer limitations	Defendants argued the four‑month Article 78 limitations applies (claims filed >3 years after final determination) and thus are time‑barred; noted three‑year statutes for Title IX/§1983 also would not save the claims	Court held the action was time‑barred under Article 78's four‑month limit; even applying three‑year statutes statutory claims would be untimely

Schulz v. Town Bd. of the Town of Queensbury, 178 AD3d 85 (2019) (courts look to core of claims; Article 78's four‑month limit applies when appropriate)
Meisner v. Hamilton, Fulton, Montgomery Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 175 AD3d 1653 (2019) (conversion to Article 78 inappropriate where Article 78 claims are time‑barred)
Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87 (1999) (administrative decisions of educational institutions involve specialized professional judgment)
Frankel v. Yeshiva Univ., 37 AD3d 760 (2007) (student disciplinary challenges addressed via Article 78)
Diehl v. St. John Fisher Coll., 278 AD2d 816 (2000) (disciplinary determinations at colleges reviewable in Article 78)
Matter of Alexander M. v. Cleary, 188 AD3d 1471 (2020) (student challenges to sexual‑misconduct disciplinary proceedings suitable for Article 78 review)
Matter of Doe v. Cornell Univ., 163 AD3d 1243 (2018) (allegations of procedural defects and bias in university disciplinary process reviewed in Article 78)
Mouscardy v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 185 AD3d 579 (2020) (recognizes three‑year limitations for certain statutory civil claims)