O.N., a freshman enrolled in Adelphi University’s Bridges Program for students with autism spectrum and related disorders, filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul an academic integrity violation issued against him. An Article 78 petition is a special proceeding under New York law that allows a court to review whether an institution or agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to its own rules.
During the Fall 2024 semester, O.N. submitted a “World Civilization” essay assignment for which he received tutoring support through the Bridges Program. Professor Micah Oelze later assigned the essay a grade of zero and accused O.N. of improperly using generative artificial intelligence, specifically Grammarly, after a Turnitin report indicated a 100% AI-generated score.
Oelze filed a formal Academic Integrity Violation Report asserting that the essay had been produced by AI. O.N. denied using AI and submitted evidence from two AI-detection programs that indicated the essay was human-written. On December 3, 2024, Adelphi’s Academic Integrity Officer issued a determination finding that O.N. was responsible and sanctioned him to attend a mandatory plagiarism workshop. When O.N. sought to appeal, arguing that he had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard or the assistance of an advisor as guaranteed under the University’s Code of Conduct, the same Academic Integrity Officer denied the appeal, stating that a faculty group had already concluded that Oelze’s evidence met university standards.
O.N. commenced the Article 78 petition asserting that the violation finding and appeal denial were arbitrary and capricious and that Adelphi failed to substantially comply with its own published procedures.
The Court emphasized that although private universities are afforded broad discretion in academic and disciplinary matters, judicial review remains available to determine whether a school acted arbitrarily and capriciously or failed to substantially comply with its own rules. In this regard, the Court found that Oelze’s subsequent email to O.N., which indicated that he believed the academic integrity office would independently evaluate the matter, undermined the strength of the initial AI-based accusation. The Court concluded that the violation and resulting appeal denial were “without valid basis and devoid of reason,” particularly where the student had submitted contrary AI-detection evidence that was not meaningfully addressed.
The Court also determined that Adelphi failed to follow its own Code of Conduct provisions. Although the University argued that the Code of Academic Integrity governed plagiarism allegations exclusively, the Court found that the broader Code of Conduct, including its Student Bill of Rights, applied. That Bill of Rights guaranteed students the opportunity to be accompanied by an advisor and to receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Court found that O.N. was not afforded those protections. Additionally, the same administrator who issued the initial determination also handled the appeal, effectively nullifying the promised right to meaningful review.
Finding that Adelphi’s actions lacked a rational basis and did not substantially comply with its own procedures, the Court granted the petition, annulled the academic integrity violation and appeal denial, and ordered Adelphi to expunge O.N.’s record and rescind the sanction.
Matter of Newby v. Adelphi Univ. (Sup.Ct.) 2026 NY Slip Op 26021.
Note: In California, private schools are similarly required to provide “fair procedure” when imposing discipline against students, which includes providing the accused student a notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond. In cases of serious misconduct, providing the accused an opportunity to appeal the decision is also recommended. This case highlights that the appeal should be meaningful and made by someone who was not involved in the underlying decision.