Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the petition is )CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Loehr v. Durand

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
608 CA 26-00294
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05637
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 3, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: granted the motion of respondents to dismiss the petition.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the petition is )

TL;DR

  1. 1The man appealed a decision to dismiss his legal case against university officials.
  2. 2The court the dismissal, agreeing it was justified.
  3. 3The key reason was that his petition failed to meet the necessary legal standards.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the petition have enough legal standing to proceed?

    Holding · The court found that the petition did not meet the required legal standards for continuation.

Why it matters

This affects how university officials handle legal petitions, impacting transparency and accountability in their decision-making.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

A former employee challenges dismissal of his petition against a university.

  1. 1A man filed a legal petition against several university officials, claiming they didn't follow the rules.
  2. 2The officials say his petition should be thrown out because it doesn't meet legal standards.
  3. 3Now he wants the court to allow his case to move forward, but they have to decide if it should be dismissed.

Should the court dismiss the petition against the university officials?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Loehr

  • Appellee

    Durand

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Loehr v Durand 2026 NY Slip Op 05637 October 2, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. IN THE MATTER OF PETER W. LOEHR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v DR. BONITA DURAND, INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BUFFALO STATE UNIVERSITY (BSU), LEVAR BURKE, J.D., M.P.A., CHIEF OF STAFF, JAMES A. THOR, BSU FOIL RECORDS ACCESS OFFICER AND INTERIM VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND COMPTROLLER, LINDA DOBMEIER, CHAIR, BSU COUNCIL, DOE#1-VICE CHANCELLOR & SECRETARY OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, DOE#2-CHANCELLOR OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, AND DOE#3, DOE#4, AND DOE#5, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 608 CA 26-00294 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ. PETER W. LOEHR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (DUSTIN J. BROCKNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered October 7, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the motion of respondents to dismiss the petition. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener