Appeal of CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOLS, on behalf of SOUTH BRONX CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOL II, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.

Decision No. 17,525

(October 17, 2018)

Law Offices of Eric J. Grannis, attorney for petitioner, Eric J. Grannis, Esq., of counsel

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Andrew J. Rauchberg, Esq., of counsel

ELIA, Commissioner.--Petitioner, Classical Charter Schools,[1] an existing education corporation with authority to operate South Bronx Classical Charter School II (“the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer a co-location site for the school in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at DOE’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e).  The appeal must be sustained.

Petitioner is authorized by the Board of Regents to operate the school, which is currently authorized to serve students in kindergarten through grade 8.  The school first opened for instruction in the 2014-2015 school year and was initially authorized to serve students in kindergarten through grade 5.  In May 2018, the school’s charter was renewed and revised to authorize it to serve students in grades 6 through 8.

On July 27, 2018, the school submitted a written request for co-location for its grades 6 through 8 using DOE’s on-line portal.[2]  By letter dated August 1, 2018, DOE acknowledged the school’s request for space beginning in the 2018-2019 school year, but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.”  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer facilities for the school, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).  As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance for its expansion to serve grades 6 through 8, in accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

Respondent admits that it denied the school’s request for co-location space and that petitioner is eligible for a finding in its favor.

Preliminarily, I note that this appeal was commenced pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), which was added by Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014.  Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) provides that a charter school in the City School District of the City of New York shall have the option of appealing the “city school district’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site through ... an expedited appeal to the commissioner” pursuant to Education Law §310 and the procedures prescribed in Education Law §2853(3)(a-5).  Pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3), in any such appeal, the standard of review shall be the standard prescribed in Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §7803.

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief (8 NYCRR §275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer the school facilities for the school’s expansion to grades 6 through 8, in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e).  Education Law §2853(3)(e) provides that, in the City School District of the City of New York, charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level approved by their charter entity for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and request co-location in a public school building, shall be provided access to facilities.  The statute also requires that, within the later of five months after a charter school’s written request for co-location and 30 days after the charter school’s charter is approved by the charter entity, the city school district shall offer the charter school either a co-location site in a public school building approved by the board of education as provided by law at no cost to the charter school, or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the charter school (Education Law §2853[3][e][1]).

Here, DOE admits that it responded to the school’s co-location request and that it did not offer space to the school.  However, in response to the school’s request, DOE was required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1) to offer the school space in a privately-owned or publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to petitioner.  As DOE has not offered any facilities at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to petitioner, it failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).

The standard of review in an appeal pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e) is the standard prescribed in CPLR §7803, which lists questions that may be raised in a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78.  The question set forth in CPLR §7803(1) is whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law.  The question set forth in CPLR §7803(3) is whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed.  Although Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) does not specify which specific provision of CPLR §7803 applies, I find that, under either subdivision (1) or (3), petitioner has carried its burden of establishing the facts and law upon which it seeks relief.

The record indicates that petitioner’s request to revise the school’s charter to expand to serve students in grades 6 through 8 was approved by its charter entity and that the school’s expansion began in the 2018-2019 school year, an expansion for which it requires additional space.  Therefore, on the record before me, I find that petitioner has established that the school requires additional space due to an expansion of grade level that was approved by its charter entity for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter.  Petitioner has, thus, met all the statutory criteria and is entitled either to a co-location or to an offer of private or other publicly-owned space (see Education Law §2853[3][e]).

Accordingly, having failed to make such an offer, DOE must, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), pay petitioner, commencing with the 2018-2019 school year, and in each remaining year of the school’s current charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, rental assistance based on student enrollment in the newly-added grades 6 through 8 for which the school has been approved to provide instruction.[3]  Specifically, with respect to an existing charter school whose expansion of grade level is approved by its charter entity, “if the appeal results in a determination in favor of the charter school, the city school district shall pay the charter school an amount attributable to the grade level expansion” that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

Therefore, DOE must pay petitioner for the school’s newly-added grades 6 through 8, commencing in the 2018-2019 school year, and in each remaining year of the current charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, an amount attributable to its expansion to grades 6 through 8 that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

In this instance, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to select an alternative privately-owned site for the school and respondent must afford petitioner an opportunity to do so.  Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site so that DOE can determine whether such rental cost is less than the amount computed pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5)(B).

Nothing herein should be construed to prevent DOE from offering petitioner co-location space for the school in the future.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner for the school’s newly-added grades for each remaining year of the current charter term and for any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, an amount attributable to the grade-level expansion that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

END OF FILE