Skip to main content

Decision No. 15,467

Appeal of EDWARD BOTROS, on behalf of his son MARIO, from action of the Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District regarding denial of admission.


Decision No. 15,467


(September 6, 2006)


Ingerman Smith, L.L.P., attorneys for respondent, Christopher Venator, Esq., of counsel


     MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District (“respondent”) to permit his seventeen year old son, Mario, to enroll in respondent’s district without the payment of tuition.  The appeal must be dismissed.

     Petitioner and his family moved from Egypt to respondent’s district in August 2005.  In January of 2006, petitioner sought to enroll Mario in respondent’s schools.  On January 12, 2006, petitioner’s request was denied and this appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on February 17, 2006.

Petitioner admits that Mario received a high school diploma in Egypt.  He claims, however, that the Egyptian diploma is not equivalent to New York State standards and that therefore Mario should be entitled to attend respondent’s schools without the payment of tuition.

 Respondent maintains that its decision is consistent with law.

Education Law �3202(1) provides, in pertinent part:

A person over five and under twenty-one years of age who has not received a high school diploma is entitled to attend the public schools maintained in the district in which such person resides without the payment of tuition.

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 Patton, et al., 42 Ed Dept Rep 226, Decision No. 14,832; Appeal of Pope, 40 id. 473, Decision No. 14,530).  It is uncontroverted that petitioner’s son has a high school diploma.  Moreover, petitioner cites no legal authority for the relief he seeks.  Accordingly, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof and therefore, I will not disturb respondent’s determination.