The opinion
—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, respondent afforded petitioner and her son “reasonable notice” of the alleged misconduct (Education Law § 3214 [3] [c]; see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Commissioner of Educ., 91 NY2d 133, 139-140 ). Respondent acted within its discretion in suspending petitioner’s son for his unlawful and threatening conduct, which occurred off school property while school was not in session (s ee, Pollnow v Glennon, 594 F Supp 220, 224 , affd 757 F2d 496; Matter of Tietje, 34 Ed Dept Rep 567, 570-571; Matter of Rodriguez, 8 Ed Dept Rep 214, 216-217; cf., Howard v Clark, 59 Misc 2d 327, 329 ). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.