Decision No. 12,851
Application to reopen the appeal of PIERRE BAGUIDY, on behalf of his son PIERRE-MICHAEL, from action of the Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District regarding residency.
Decision No. 12,851
(December 21, 1992)
Douglas E. Libby, Esq., attorney for respondent
SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner seeks a reopening of my previous Decision No. 12792, dated September 1, 1992 (32 Ed Dept Rep ___). In that decision, I dismissed petitioner's appeal and upheld respondent's determination that petitioner is not a resident of the district. The application must be denied.
An application to reopen an appeal is governed by 8 NYCRR '276.8, which provides in relevant 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.
8 NYCRR '276.8(a)
Pursuant to '276.8, a decision will not be reopened absent new and material evidence not available at the time of the original appeal, or evidence that the prior decision was rendered under a misapprehension of fact (Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, 31 Ed Dept Rep 370; Appeal of Steenrod, 28 id. 316). An application for reopening is not intended to provide an opportunity for reargument of a prior decision (Application of Coleman, 31 Ed Dept Rep 211; Application of Ferris, 30 id. 444; Application of Burke, 28 id. 205).
Petitioner has failed to present new evidence or to establish that my prior decision was rendered under a misapprehension of fact. To the contrary, 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 was not available at the time the original appeal was brought.
I note that denial of this application does not affect the status of the pending appeal between the parties commenced by petitioner on October 5, 1992 regarding events occurring subsequent to my Decision No. 12792.
THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.
END OF FILE