ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

December 14, 2023

Challenging the denial of Petitioner's request to use school facilities and seeking the removal of certain school personnel

The Petitioner in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education:

[1] challenged the Board of Education's denial of his request to use district facilities in order to "operate an afterschool program" for a second year: and 

[2] sought the removal of the superintendent.

With respect to Petitioner's application seeking the removal of the superintendent, the Commissioner said Petitioner's application to remove the Superintendent must be denied because Petitioner's application lacked "the notice required by section 277.1(b) of the Commissioner’s regulations".

Citing Application of Johnson, et al., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,055, and other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner explained "a removal application that does not include the specific notice required by 8 NYCRR 277.1(b) is fatally defective and must be denied."*

Turning to the merits of the Petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner indicated  Education Law §414 provides that "boards of education may permit the use of district grounds and other property when not in use for school business for certain specific purposes. Further, the Commissioner noted that the New York State Court of Appeals has held that local school boards "exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property generally"** and that a school board’s determination in this regard may only be reversed if it is determined to be arbitrary or capricious.

Referring to information in the record, the Commissioner found that the school board "possessed ample justification to decline [Petitioner’s] request to utilize its facilities", opining that permitting Petitioner to continue using school facilities "could foreseeably lead to safety or liability issues."

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioner's appeal and denied Petitioner's application.

* §277.1(b) sets out the specific notice required for removal applications pursuant to Education Law §306, which is distinct from the notice required under §275.11(a) for appeals pursuant to Education Law §310.

** See Matter of Lloyd v. Grella, 83 NY2d 537.

Click HERE to access the full text of the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.