January 29, 2014
In the Matter of Priyadarshan Bajpayi, etc., appellant,
SUNY Downstate Medical Center, et al., respondents. Index No. 28791/11
Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert L. Schonfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Won S. Shin of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PLUMMER E. LOTT, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the SUNY Downstate Medical Center dated November 17, 2011, inter alia, denying the petitioner credit for his fourth year of post-graduate medical training based on sustained allegations of certain misconduct, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated September 12, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent SUNY Downstate Medical Center (hereinafter Downstate) followed its own policies before denying him credit for his fourth year of post-graduate medical training and, thus, its determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Mullen v County of Suffolk Police Dept., 307 A.D.2d 1036, 1037; Matter of Church v Wing, 229 A.D.2d 1019, 1020). The petitioner's actions constituted "misconduct" as that term is defined in Downstate's Misconduct Due Process Policy. As a result, the due process procedures required under the Misconduct Due Process Policy were triggered, but, unlike Downstate's Academic Performance Due Process Policy, the Misconduct Due Process Policy did not require Downstate to provide the petitioner with a letter of deficiency and an opportunity to cure.
Further, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the denial of credit for a previously completed period of training is an authorized penalty under the Misconduct Due Process Policy (cf. Matter of Ram v Board of Health of Nassau County Health Dist., 216 A.D.2d 470, 471; Matter of Brabham v Weinstein, 89 A.D.2d 566).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.