Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 17,209

Appeal of CARDINAL MCCLOSKEY COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.

Decision No. 17,209

(October 4, 2017)

Cohen Schneider LLP, attorneys for petitioner, Susan R. Briggs, Esq., of counsel

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Lesley Berson Mbaye, Esq., of counsel

ELIA, Commissioner.--Petitioner, Cardinal McCloskey Community Charter School (“the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at DOE’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e).  The appeal must be sustained.

Petitioner’s application to operate a charter school was approved by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) in June 2017.  It has been approved to serve students in kindergarten through grade 5 in Community School District (“CSD”) 10.  The school is scheduled to commence instruction in the 2018-2019 school year serving students in kindergarten and grade 1, and will expand one grade level in each succeeding school year until it serves students in kindergarten through grade 5.

By letter to DOE dated August 8, 2017, petitioner requested co-location in a public school building pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e).  By letter dated August 10, 2017, DOE acknowledged petitioner’s request, but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.”[1]  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer it any facilities in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e).  As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to comply with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) and pay rental assistance, beginning with the 2018-2019 school year and continuing thereafter, in an amount attributable to the formation of the new charter school that is equal to the lesser of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site selected by petitioner or thirty (30) percent[2] of the product of petitioner’s basic tuition for the current school year and petitioner’s current year enrollment.

Respondent admits that it has not offered petitioner a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, but requests that the appeal be dismissed in its entirety.

Preliminarily, I note that this appeal was commenced pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), which was added by Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014.  Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) provides that a charter school in the City School District of the City of New York shall have the option of appealing the “city school district’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site through ... an expedited appeal to the commissioner” pursuant to Education Law §310 and the procedures prescribed in Education Law §2853(3)(a-5).  Pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3), in any such appeal, the standard of review shall be the standard prescribed in Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §7803.

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief (8 NYCRR §275.10; Appeal of Aversa, 48 Ed Dept Rep 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884; Appeal of P.M., 48 id. 348, Decision No. 15,882).

Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer either co-location space in a public school building or space in another public or private facility at no cost to petitioner.  Education Law §2853(3)(e) provides that in the City School District of the City of New York, charter schools that are approved by their charter entity to first commence instruction for the 2014–2015 school year or thereafter and request co-location in a public school building shall be provided access to facilities.  The statute also requires that, within the later of five months after a charter school’s written request for co-location and 30 days after the charter school’s charter is approved by the charter entity, the city school district shall offer the charter school either a co-location site in a public school building approved by the board of education as provided by law at no cost to the charter school, or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the charter school (Education Law §2853[3][e][1]).

Here, respondent admits that it has not offered co-located space to petitioner.  However, in the event that DOE did not offer petitioner a co-location site in a public school building, it was nevertheless required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1) to offer petitioner space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to petitioner.  Instead, DOE indicated in its August 10, 2017 response only that it would not be extending an offer of space.  As it did not offer petitioner space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to petitioner, DOE failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).

The standard of review in an appeal pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e) is the standard prescribed in CPLR §7803, which lists questions that may be raised in a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78.  The question set forth in CPLR §7803(1) is whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law.  The question set forth in CPLR §7803(3) is whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed.  Although Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) does not specify which specific provision of CPLR §7803 applies, I find that under either subdivision (1) or (3), petitioner has carried its burden of establishing the facts and law upon which it seeks relief.

In accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE is therefore required to pay rental assistance based on student enrollment in all grades for which petitioner has been approved to provide instruction during its current charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein[3] (see Appeal of Our World Neighborhood Charter School, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,065; Appeal of Uncommon New York City Charter School, 56 id., Decision No. 17,010; Appeal of Rosalyn Yalow Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16,690).  I note that Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) provides for rental assistance based on current school year enrollment, not the enrollment projections set forth in the charter, for each year of the charter term.  Specifically, with respect to a new charter school “if the appeal results in a determination in favor of the charter school, the city school district shall pay the charter school an amount attributable to ... the formation of the new charter school...” that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

The amounts payable to a charter school in its first year of operation shall be based on the projections of initial-year enrollment set forth in the charter until actual enrollment is reported to the school district by the charter school (see Education Law §2856[1][b]).  Such projections shall be reconciled with the actual enrollment at the end of the school’s first year of operation, and any adjustment shall be made to payments during the school’s second year of operation (see Education Law §2856[1][b]).

The record in this case indicates that the school will first commence instruction in the 2018–2019 school year serving students in kindergarten and grade 1.  It will expand one grade level each succeeding school year until it serves students in kindergarten through grade 5.  Accordingly, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE must pay petitioner in each year of the charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, an amount attributable to the formation of the new charter school that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).  As noted above, DOE is obligated to pay for all the grades in the newly-opened charter school in each year of the initial charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein; the amount payable must be based on the charter school’s actual current year enrollment (see Appeal of Our World Neighborhood Charter School, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,065; Appeal of Uncommon New York City Charter School, 56 id., Decision No. 17,010; Appeal of Rosalyn Yalow Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16,690).

In this instance, petitioner also has not been afforded the opportunity to select an alternative privately-owned site and respondent must afford the charter school an opportunity to do so.  Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site so that DOE can determine whether such rental cost is less than the amount computed pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5)(B).

Nothing herein should be construed to prevent DOE from offering petitioner co-location space in the future.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that DOE comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner an amount attributable to the formation of the new charter school that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).

END OF FILE

 

[1] According to petitioner’s head of school, as a result of DOE’s failure to offer space, the school will incur rental costs and expenses.

 

[2] Effective July 1, 2017, Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) was amended to increase the percentage in the rental assistance formula from 20 percent to 30 percent. 

 

[3] To be eligible for an apportionment pursuant to Education Law §3602(6-g) where the charter school has prevailed in an appeal to the Commissioner pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), DOE must document all expenses incurred pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) for each such charter school for the term of the charter indicated in the Commissioner’s decision, including any renewals pursuant to Education Law §2851(4), provided that the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter that was the subject of the Commissioner’s decision (see New York State Education Department, Update on Facilities Assistance Guidance for NYC Charter Schools, dated November 3, 2016).