Appeal of SAFIA MALIK, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the North Bellmore Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,363

(December 12, 2023)

Ingerman Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Steven A. Goodstadt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the North Bellmore Union Free School District (“respondent” or “district”) regarding the transportation of her child (“the student”) to a nonpublic school for the 2023-2024 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed. 

Respondent resides within respondent’s district.  During the 2022-2023 school year, petitioner submitted a timely request for transportation to a nonpublic school on the student’s behalf.  Respondent provided the requested transportation. 

In or around February 2023, petitioner submitted a request for transportation to the nonpublic school for the following school year.  She submitted the request to the Locust Valley Central School (“Locust Valley”), the school district where the nonpublic school is located.  Petitioner claims that she submitted this request in response to a letter from Locust Valley “demanding [that she] complete and submit an application for [the student’s] school bus.”

In August 2023, Locust Valley informed petitioner that the student “shall not be provided the bus service this year as [the] North Bellmore School District is responsible for it.”  Petitioner subsequently submitted a transportation request to respondent. 

By email dated August 15, 2023, respondent’s assistant superintendent for business (“assistant superintendent”) informed petitioner that respondent denied her request for transportation.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on August 30, 2023.  

Petitioner argues that the “negligence” of Locust Valley in not responding to her transportation request until August 2023 constitutes a reasonable explanation for the delay in submitting her request.  She requests transportation to the nonpublic school for the 2023-2024 school year.

Respondent argues that petitioner has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that transportation would present a significant additional expense for the district.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3635 (2), a parent or guardian must submit a written request for transportation no later than the first day of April preceding the school year for which transportation is sought or, if the parent or guardian did not reside in the district as of April 1, within 30 days after establishing residency in the district.  The purpose of this deadline is to enable districts to budget funds and make necessary arrangements to provide transportation reasonably and economically (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  However, a district may not reject a request for transportation as late if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay (Education Law § 3635 [2]; Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295).  In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the board of education to determine whether a parent or guardian has offered a reasonable explanation for submitting a late request (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  On appeal, the Commissioner will not set aside the board’s determination unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she 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).

It is undisputed that petitioner erroneously sent the transportation request to Locust Valley instead of respondent and, further, that Locust Valley did not inform her of this error until August 2023.  While this is unfortunate, it was petitioner’s responsibility to submit a timely request for transportation to her district of residence (Appeal of Simonis, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,889; Appeal of H.G.H., 59 id., Decision No. 17,818).  Additionally, petitioner has not established that Locust Valley “demand[ed]” that she complete and submit a transportation form.  Petitioner’s evidence consists solely of a Locust Valley form entitled “Request for Pupil Transportation for School Year 2023-2024” that she completed.  There is no indication, on the form or elsewhere, that Locust Valley required petitioner to complete this form.  As such, I decline to set aside the board’s determination denying petitioner’s request for transportation for the 2023-2024 school year.[1]

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE