Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 12,576

Application to reopen the appeal of ANDREA VECCHIO from action of the Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District relating to a vote on a bond issue.

Decision No. 12,576

(August 29, 1991)

Ingerman, Smith, Greenberg, Gross, Richmond, Heidelberger & Reich, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Lawrence W. Reich, Esq., of counsel

SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner applies for reopening of a previous appeal which was dismissed by Decision No. 12409, dated October 4, 1990. Petitioner contends that the decision was rendered under a misapprehension of fact and that there is new and material evidence which was not available at the time the original decision was made. The application must be denied.

Applications for reopening are governed by 8 NYCRR '276.8. The regulation provides in pertinent part:

Applications for reopening are addressed solely to the discretion of the Commissioner, and will not be granted in the absence of a showing that the decision which is the subject of such application was rendered under a misapprehension as to the facts or that there is new and material evidence which was not available at the time the original decision was made.... An application to reopen a decision shall set forth concisely the basis upon which the applicant believes such decision should be reopened.

Petitioner has not sustained her burden of demonstrating proper grounds upon which the application could be granted. In the prior decision, I determined that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the election might have been different but for the content of an informational brochure prepared and disseminated by respondent. The application before me consists primarily of reargument as to why the original appeal should have been sustained and is devoid of any new and material information which could not have been available at the time the original appeal was brought. Further, petitioner has not demonstrated any misapprehension of fact in the original decision which relates to the grounds for the holding in the original appeal (Application of Board of Education of Monroe-Woodbury CSD, 28 Ed Dept Rep 115; Application of Burke, 28 id 205).

THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.

END OF FILE