Appeal of MARIAH ADIN, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Valley Central School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,519

(November 12, 2024)

Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Allison E. Smith, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Valley Central School District (“respondent”) denying transportation of her child (the “student”) to a nonpublic school.  The appeal must be sustained.

On March 22, 2024, petitioner requested transportation to a nonpublic school (the “first nonpublic school”) for the 2024-2025 school year.  On June 26, 2024, respondent denied petitioner’s transportation request because the nonpublic school did not possess a Basic Education Data System (BEDS) code.[1]  Petitioner thereafter enrolled the student in a second nonpublic school and submitted a corresponding transportation request on July 15, 2024.  Respondent denied this request because it was submitted after the April 1 deadline and would impose additional costs.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was granted on August 19, 2024.

Petitioner seeks a determination that the student is entitled to transportation to the second nonpublic school for the 2024-2025 school year. 

Respondent argues that it permissibly denied petitioner’s request because it was submitted after April 1, she did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the transportation would impose additional costs.

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).

I find, based upon the reasoning of Appeal of Cornerstone Christian School, et al. (30 Ed Dept Rep 452, Decision No. 12,532) (“Cornerstone”), that petitioner presented a reasonable explanation for her late transportation request.  In Cornerstone, a school district approved parental requests for transportation to a nonpublic school prior to April 1.  However, in mid-August, the school encountered unforeseen construction delays that necessitated temporary relocation to a different site for the beginning of the school year.  The parents then submitted updated transportation requests to the temporary location, which the district denied.  On appeal, the Commissioner found that the parents acted reasonably in submitting a late request as they “had no [prior] knowledge” of the “unforeseen delays” in construction and “promptly” submitted new requests thereafter (accord Appeal of Lamba, 32 Ed Dept Rep 473, Decision No. 12,890 [reasonable explanation for late request found due to “circumstances beyond petitioner’s control”; namely, nonpublic school’s notification in August that it could no longer offer residential boarding to the student]).

The reasoning of Cornerstone supports an identical outcome here.  Respondent does not allege that petitioner knew or should have known that the student could not receive transportation to the first nonpublic school until respondent informed her of such on June 26, 2024.  Thus, petitioner did not make a belated decision to change schools after the April 1 deadline; she did so only in response to respondent’s denial of her timely transportation request in late June.  The first nonpublic school’s lack of a BEDS code was a “circumstance[ ] beyond petitioner[’s] control” (Cornerstone Christian School, et al., 30 Ed Dept Rep 452, Decision No. 12,532; see Appeal of New Covenant Charter School, 39 Ed Dept Rep 610, Decision No. 14,327).  Additionally, as in Cornerstone, petitioner “promptly” submitted a transportation request to the second nonpublic school two and one-half weeks later.

Respondent’s attempts to distinguish Cornerstone are unpersuasive.  The fact that Cornerstone involved a single nonpublic school and the instant appeal involves two is irrelevant; the temporary location of Cornerstone Christian School, for purposes of transportation, was the functional equivalent of a different school.  Similarly, the number of students affected by the late requests—an indirect consideration of cost—has no bearing on whether a petitioner presented a “reasonable explanation for the delay” (Education Law § 3635 [2]; see Appeal of Evergreen Charter School and Bernadino, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,939 [exception for late transportation requests that would not impose any additional costs “is a separate exception that is not dependent upon a finding of reasonableness”]).[2]  Thus, under these circumstances, I find that petitioner had a reasonable excuse for filing a late transportation request (Appeal of Cornerstone Christian School, et al., 30 id. 452, Decision No. 12,532; see also Appeal of Fusion Academy-Brooklyn, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,070; Appeal of Lamba, 32 id. 473, Decision No. 12,890).

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. 

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent provide the student with transportation to the second nonpublic school for the 2024-2025 school year.

END OF FILE