Appeal of INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.

Decision No. 18,096

(March 10, 2022)

Shebitz Berman & Delforte, P.C., attorneys for petitioner, Jacob S. Claveloux, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner, International Leadership Charter High School[1] (“the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer it a co-location site 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 currently authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”)[2] to serve students in grades 6 through 12.  Its initial charter was issued in January 2006, authorizing it to serve students in grades 9 through 12.  Its charter was subsequently renewed on three occasions, most recently in 2020.  In 2021, its charter was revised to authorize petitioner to expand to serve students in grades 6 through 8.  According to petitioner, it will expand to serve students in grade 6 in the 2022-2023 school year, grade 7 in the 2023-2024 school year, and grade 8 in the 2024-2025 school year.[3]

On January 28, 2022, a written request for co-location was submitted for petitioner’s grades 6 through 8, pursuant to Education Law § 2853 (3) (e).  By letter dated January 28, 2022, DOE acknowledged the request for space, 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 it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility for the school, at no cost to the school, in violation of Education Law § 2853 (3) (e).  As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance in accordance with Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5).

Preliminarily, I must address a procedural matter.  Respondent has not filed an answer in response to the petition.  An answer in a charter school co-location appeal must be served within ten business days of service of the petition (8 NYCRR 276.11 [e] [1]).  If an answer is not served and filed in accordance with the provisions of the Commissioner’s regulations, the statements contained in the petition will be deemed to be true statements, and a decision will be rendered thereon by the Commissioner (8 NYCRR 276.11 [c] [2]).  Accordingly, the factual allegations set forth in the petition will be deemed to be true statements (Appeal of Democracy Preparatory Charter School, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,734; Appeal of R.S., 57 id. Decision No. 17,238; Appeal of Dream Charter School, 55 id., Decision No. 16,906).

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 it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school, 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 responded to the January 28, 2022 co-location request but did not offer petitioner a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school.  However, in response to the request, DOE was required by Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (1) to offer petitioner 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 the school, 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, in June 2021, petitioner was authorized by its charter entity to expand to serve students in grades 6 through 8.  Petitioner will expand to serve students in grade 6 in the 2022-2023 school year, grade 7 in the 2023-2024 school year, and grade 8 in the 2024-2025 school year—expansions for which it requires additional space.[4]  Therefore, on the record before me, I find that petitioner has established that it 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) and petitioner’s request, pay petitioner, commencing with the 2022-2023 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 for which the school has been approved to provide instruction.^[5]  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 its newly-added grade 6 commencing in the 2022-2023 school year, grade 7 commencing in the 2023-2024 school year, and grade 8 commencing in the 2024-2025 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, 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 and respondent must afford petitioner an opportunity to do so.  Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the amount of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site attributable to the grade-level expansion 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 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 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); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this decision be served upon Hon. Sylvia Hinds-Radix, as Corporation Counsel of the New York City Law Department, and upon Liz Vladeck, General Counsel for the New York City Department of Education.

END OF FILE