## Facts

- Adelphi University is a private not-for-profit educational corporation in New York governed by a board of trustees.
- Private citizens associated with a group seeking governance changes submitted a petition to the New York Board of Regents seeking removal of Adelphi’s trustees for cause under Education Law § 226(4).
- The Board of Regents accepted the petition and scheduled a trustee-removal hearing.
- The Board did not draft the petition or verify the allegations before setting the hearing; the private complainants were expected to present and prosecute the charges.
- Adelphi and its trustees commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking (1) a writ of prohibition to halt the hearing as an unlawful delegation of the Regents’ authority and (2) declaratory relief requiring SAPA-governed procedures and barring private parties from initiating or prosecuting the removal case.
- Supreme Court dismissed the petition, concluding prohibition was unavailable on these facts.
- Petitioners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a writ of prohibition should issue on the theory that the Board of Regents exceeded its jurisdiction under Education Law § 226(4) by allowing private citizens to initiate and prosecute a trustee-removal proceeding.
2. Whether petitioners were entitled, before any final agency determination, to a declaration that the removal hearing must follow SAPA procedures and that private individuals lack authority to initiate or conduct the proceeding.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed dismissal of the article 78 petition.
- Prohibition did not lie because petitioners failed to show a clear legal right and failed to show the Board was acting wholly without or in excess of jurisdiction.
- Allowing private complainants to draft and present charges did not constitute an unlawful delegation so long as the Board retained screening, hearing control, and final decision-making authority.
- Challenges to hearing procedure, including SAPA-based objections and fairness concerns, were premature and generally reviewable after a final determination through ordinary judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- Prohibition is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy available only to restrain action taken without jurisdiction or in excess of authorized power; it requires a clear legal right to relief.
- An agency’s use of private complainants or presenters of charges does not, by itself, divest the agency of jurisdiction where the agency retains control over acceptance of charges, conduct of the hearing, and ultimate adjudication.
- Alleged procedural defects in an ongoing quasi-judicial administrative proceeding ordinarily do not justify collateral pre-hearing judicial intervention when post-determination review is available.
- Under Education Law § 226(4), the Board of Regents has broad authority to remove trustees of educational corporations for specified causes, and may entertain petitions originating outside the agency consistent with retaining final adjudicatory authority.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Board of Regents acted within its statutory jurisdiction in proceeding with a trustee-removal hearing under Education Law § 226(4) based on charges brought by private complainants, and that prohibition and related pre-hearing declaratory relief were unavailable where petitioners’ objections primarily concerned procedure and could be raised after a final agency determination.


In re Adelphi Univ. v. Bd. of Regents of the State of N.Y., 229 A.D.2d 36, 652 N.Y.S.2d 837 (3d Dep’t 1997)