NEW YORK—After several years of litigation, Dr. Seshubabu Desu (claimant) triumphed over Binghamton University (defendant). The Court issued a paramount ruling on the case # 2020-044-002 that Binghamton University is 100% liable for conversion Dr. Desu’s research equipment and tangible documentation of his research and ideas. As per the legal dictionary, conversion usually includes the crime of theft and conversion is a fancy way of saying “stealing.”

The Court found that the testimony of Dr. Desu is entirely credible stating that “Defendant urges that claimant’s credibility is tainted due to his resignation after the investigation into alleged falsification of travel documents. It should be noted that no conclusion to that investigation was ever provided to the Court. Moreover, the criminal charges were dropped by the District Attorney.” Notes 88, Page 38 of the of the Decision

The Court further declares: “If there is a deficiency in credibility, it does not appear to lie with claimant.” Page 26 of the of the Decision

The Court was perplexed by the willful actions of the defendant Binghamton University. During the pendency of the claim, the Court suggested-strongly-to defendant that it should allow a supervised visit of Dr. Desu to his old office and laboratories since such visit might resolve many of the discovery issues. The suggestion was flatly denied by the defendant, without any explanation.

“It takes sheer effrontery to forbid someone physical access to his property, tell him he can only have his property if he can provide documentation that it belongs to him, and then deny access to that documentation.” Page 26 of the of the Decision

In addition, the Court found that the Binghamton University damaged Dr. Desu’s research career by prematurely releasing his ideas to the public domain without giving any credit to him.

“The Court is convinced, based upon a review ---------- that the genesis of the idea to synthesize Zn3P2 nanowires at low temperatures by chemical flux method (and quite likely other original ideas) originated with claimant, and he was not appropriately credited for the work.” Page 30 of the of the Decision

“He was accordingly denied the opportunity to seek a patent, either through the University or on his own.” Page 30 of the of the Decision

The Court also found that the Binghamton University tarnished Dr. Desu’s reputation and credibility by publishing papers with inaccurate information and incorrect conclusions while including his name as a co-author, without my permission and denying him his rights to have a chance to review manuscripts and make critical inputs and corrections.

“He was eventually credited with some small contribution to the work, but that credit was given in contravention of the ICMJE criteria, based so on some documentation not articulated, by someone unnamed, on papers with glaring errors. Claimant was not given the opportunity to review the papers, correct the errors, or even consent to having his name added to them as an author.” Page 30 of the of the Decision

Furthermore, the Court was stunned by the fact the Binghamton University did not conduct investigation as mandated by the University policies when it was alerted to the potential misappropriation of Dr. Desu’s research ideas.

“Sammakia agreed that adding claimant’s name to papers after they had already been published would suggest that research misconduct had occurred, and that an investigation should have taken place pursuant to the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy. Of course, no such investigation took place.” Page 30 of the of the Decision

“In other words, despite having their attention called to the potential misappropriation of claimant’s intellectual property the University and its officials decided not to conduct investigation pursuant to the University’s Responsible Conduct of research Policy. Instead, an “authorship review” was conducted, its results ignored, and claimant was given partial attribution for sloppy publications without his input or permission.” Page 30 of the of the Decision

Binghamton University decided not to appeal the decision but filed a motion to limit the damages at the upcoming damages trial. The motion was denied by the court.

Background
In 2007, Binghamton University recruited Dr. Seshubabu Desu, an internationally recognized researcher, to serve as the Dean for school of Engineering since he had he proven record of working with faculty members to increase their research productivity.

Trouble started with the discovery of multi-million-dollar deficit (which accumulated stealthily over the years) in Harpur College of Arts and Sciences, although Colleges and Departments had to have balanced budgets every year. To fill this hidden deficit in Harpur College, the Provost reneged on the promises made to Dr. Desu and diverted all the available funds from the College of Engineering. After losing all the open positions as well the promised additional faculty positions, Dr. Desu resigned from the Dean's position and founded a solar energy research center by securing external federal funding of $8 mil. The new Dean of Engineering with the support of Provost, wanted to divert his research funds to fill the budget gaps in academics, which he resisted. He also questioned the misrepresentation of funds generated by student body-shopping as research funds by the new Dean. In addition, he contested the underhanded faculty hires, who blatantly misrepresented their achievements in their resumes.

Soon after, BU charged him on a dispute over travel expenses and destroyed his credibility with lots of press releases containing innuendoes. However, the case never saw the light of the day because of its frivolous nature and the District Attorney dropped the case.

Because of the toxic atmosphere, Dr. Desu resigned, as a part of the global agreement, from his position at BU in 2010 with an agreement that BU would return his 30+ years of research materials, research data and equipment. After receiving his resignation BU reneged on their promises and converted all of his personal materials. After all the negotiations failed, he filed a lawsuit against BU in the Court of Claims in 2013. He won the liability case in 2020 and the trial for damages is going to be held in April 2022.

Decision:
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2020-044-002.html