Skip to main content

Decision No. 17,958

Appeal of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STAMFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT from action of the Board of Education of the Deposit Central School District and the Delaware County Department of Social Services regarding tuition reimbursement.

Decision No. 17,958

(January 7, 2021)

Girvin & Ferlazzo, PC, attorneys for petitioner, Erin R. Rose-Morris, Esq., of counsel

Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, attorneys for respondent Board of Education of the Deposit Central School District, Cheryl I. Sacco, Esq., of counsel

Delaware County Office of the County Attorney, attorneys for respondent Delaware County Department of Social Services, D. Jeremy Rase, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Interim Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the Board of Education of the Deposit Central School District (“respondent Deposit”) to pay for the tuition costs petitioner incurred in educating two foster care students (“the students”) during the 2018-2019 school year.  Petitioner also joins the Delaware County Department of Social Services (“respondent DSS”) in connection therewith.  The appeal must be sustained.

This is the second appeal commenced by petitioner concerning tuition reimbursement for the students (see Appeal of the Board of Education of the Stamford Central School District, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,767).  In the first appeal, commenced on July 30, 2018, petitioner argued that respondent Deposit was responsible for the cost of the students’ instruction for the 2017-2018 school year because, by DSS 2999 forms dated April 2, 2018, respondent DSS determined that the students resided in respondent Deposit’s district when they were placed in foster care, and respondent Deposit failed to challenge this determination within 10 days.

While that appeal was pending, by email and letter to respondent Deposit’s superintendent dated June 24, 2019, petitioner’s business manager asserted that respondent Deposit was responsible for the cost of the students’ instruction.  Petitioner’s business manager attached invoices for the cost of tuition for the 2018-2019 school year.

By email dated June 26, 2019, respondent Deposit’s superintendent wrote to petitioner’s business manager and stated

we continue to await the decision of the Commissioner since the [d]istrict is challenging the year that the students went into custody and care; and thus every year thereafter.  When a decision is rendered, we are prepared to fully comply with any outcome.

In a decision dated October 10, 2019, the Commissioner sustained petitioner’s appeal and ordered respondent Deposit to reimburse petitioner for tuition costs incurred by petitioner for educating the students during the 2017-2018 school year (Appeal of the Board of Education of the Stamford Central School District, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,767).  The Commissioner reasoned, in relevant part, that respondent Deposit did not challenge its designation as the students’ district of residence within the period prescribed in Education Law §3202(4)(f)(ii).  Therefore, upon expiration of the 10-day time period to challenge such determination, it became final and binding such that respondent Deposit was estopped from challenging its designation as the district responsible for the cost of the students’ instruction on appeal.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner argues that respondent Deposit is responsible for the cost of the students’ instruction for the same reasons set forth in Appeal of the Board of Education of the Stamford Central School District (59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,767).  Respondents generally deny that they are responsible for the costs of the student’s instruction.[1]

The appeal must be sustained for the same reasons set forth in Appeal of the Board of Education of the Stamford Central School District (59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,767).  As indicated above, that decision held that respondent Deposit was estopped from challenging its designation as the students’ district of residence within the period prescribed in Education Law §3202(4)(f)(ii) during the 2017-2018 school year.  The record in this appeal does not contain any new facts or arguments that would justify a different conclusion for the 2018-2019 school year; the parties merely restate the arguments posed in Appeal of the Board of Education of the Stamford Central School District (59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,767).  Because the record reveals no explanation as to why I should depart from the holding and reasoning of that decision, petitioner’s appeal is hereby sustained.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent Deposit pay petitioner for tuition costs incurred by petitioner for educating the students during the 2018-2019 school year.

END OF FILE

 

[1] In light of my determination herein, I need not address certain procedural matters, including respondent Deposit’s September 9, 2019 request pursuant to 8 NYCRR §§275.13 and 276.5 to submit exhibits it inadvertently omitted from its answer.