Decision No. 18,403
Appeal of ELLENI CALAS, on behalf of her child, from action of the New York City Department of Education, et al., regarding high school admissions.
Decision No. 18,403
(May 6, 2024)
Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorneys for respondent, Jordan Doll, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the New York City Department of Education (“respondent”) to deny her child (the “student”) admission to one of its high schools.[1] The appeal must be dismissed.
Petitioner and the student participated in respondent’s application process for high school admissions for the 2023-24 school year. Respondent subsequently denied the student admission to their high school of choice. This appeal ensued. Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on June 7, 2023.
The appeal must be dismissed as untimely. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16; Appeal of Saxena, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,239; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914). Except in unusual circumstances, ignorance of the appeal process does not afford a sufficient basis to excuse a delay in commencing an appeal (Appeal of D.B., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,807; Appeal of Stieffenhofer, 48 id 231, Decision No. 15,846).
Respondent denied the student admission by letter in March 2023.[2] On March 9, 2023, respondent publicly announced the results of the high school admission process. The petition was not served until May 25, 2023, almost 80 days after petitioner knew or should have known that the student was not admitted to her desired high school. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.
Petitioner admits that the petition was untimely, and her proffered reasons for the delay relate to her pro se status and unfamiliarity with the appeal process. As noted above, except in unusual circumstances, ignorance of the appeal process does not afford a sufficient basis to excuse a delay in commencing an appeal (see Application of Karimi, 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,345; Application of S.D., 60 id., Decision No. 18,009). No such circumstances are present here.
In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] Petitioner also named several school officials as respondents. Given the fact that petitioner appeals the final decision of respondent, I find no purpose in featuring these individuals in the caption of the appeal or considering them respondents herein (Appeal of Rosselli-Dabool, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,262; see Appeal of C.B., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,238).
[2] The admissions letter does not indicate which day it was mailed. However, even assuming the admission letter was dated March 31, 2023 and affording five days for mailing, the petition was still filed beyond the 30-day requirement.