Decision No. 18,005
Appeal of BRILLA COLLEGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOLS, on behalf of BRILLA COLLEGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
Decision No. 18,005
(June 15, 2021)
Law Offices of Eric J. Grannis, attorney for petitioner, Eric J. Grannis, Esq., of counsel
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Mark G. Toews, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner, Brilla College Preparatory Charter Schools, an existing education corporation with authority to operate Brilla College Preparatory Charter School (“Brilla” or “the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer petitioner a co-location site for the school 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 the school, as required by Education Law § 2853 (3) (e). The appeal must be sustained.
Petitioner is authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) to operate multiple charter schools, including Brilla. Prior to its most recent charter revision, the school was authorized to serve students in kindergarten through grade 8.[1],[2] Petitioner states that, in December 2020, the school’s charter was revised to authorize the school to expand to serve students in grades 9 through 12.[3] According to petitioner, the school will expand to serve students in grade 9 in the 2022-2023 school year, grade 10 in the 2023-2024 school year, grade 11 in the 2024-2025 school year, and grade 12 in the 2025-2026 school year.
On January 12, 2021, a written request for co-location was submitted for the school’s grades 9 through 12, pursuant to Education Law § 2853 (3) (e). By letter dated January 25, 2021, DOE acknowledged the request for space, but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.” This appeal ensued.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer it facilities for the school, at no cost to the school, in violation of Education Law § 2853 (3) (e). As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance for the school’s grades 9 through 12 in accordance with Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5).
Respondent admits that it has not offered petitioner a co-location site for the school in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school, and that petitioner is eligible for a finding in its favor.
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 P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility for Brilla’s grades 9 through 12, at no cost to the school, in violation of Education Law § 2853 (3) (e). Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) provides that, in the City School District of the City of New York, charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level approved by their charter entity 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, DOE responded to the January 12, 2021 co-location request but did not offer petitioner a co-location site for Brilla in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school. However, in response to the request, DOE was required by Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (1) to offer petitioner space for the school in a privately-owned or publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the school (see Appeal of Elm Community Charter School, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,375; Appeal of South Bronx Community Charter High School, 55 id., Decision No. 16,908). As DOE has not offered any facilities at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the school, it 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 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.
The record in this case indicates that Brilla was approved by its charter entity to expand to serve students in grades 9 through 12. The school will expand to serve students in grade 9 in the 2022-2023 school year, grade 10 in the 2023-2024 school year, grade 11 in the 2024-2025 school year, and grade 12 in the 2025-2026 school year, expansions for which it requires additional space. Therefore, on the record before me, I find that petitioner has established that Brilla requires additional space due to an expansion of grade level that was approved by its charter entity for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter. Petitioner has, thus, met all the statutory criteria and is entitled either to a co-location or to an offer of private or other publicly-owned space for the schools (see Education Law § 2853 [3] [e]).[4]
Accordingly, having failed to make such an offer, DOE must, pursuant to Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5), pay petitioner for the schools’ newly-added grades 9 through 12, commencing with the 2022-2023 school year, and in each remaining year of the school’s 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, rental assistance based on student enrollment in the newly-added grades for which the school has been approved to provide instruction.[5] Specifically, with respect to an existing charter school whose expansion of grade level is approved by its charter entity, “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 grade level expansion” that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5).
Therefore, DOE must pay petitioner for the school’s newly-added grades 9 through 12, commencing in the 2022-2023 school year, and in each remaining year of the school’s 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, an amount attributable to its expansion to grades 9 through 12 that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5).[6]
In this instance, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to select an alternative privately-owned site for the school, and respondent must afford petitioner an opportunity to do so. Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the amount of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site for the school attributable to the grade-level expansion 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 for the school in the future.
THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.
IT IS ORDERED that respondent comply with the requirements of Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5) in accordance with this decision and pay for the school’s newly-added grades for each remaining year of the current charter term and for 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 grade-level expansion that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5).
END OF FILE
[1] In previous appeals, decisions were issued ordering DOE to comply with the requirements of Education Law § 2853 (3) (e) (5) with respect to a request for space relating to Brilla’s kindergarten through grade 5 (see Appeal of Brilla College Preparatory Charter School, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,735; Appeal of Brilla College Preparatory Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16, 766) and grades 6 through 8 (see Appeal of Brilla College Preparatory Charter Schools, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,526).
[2] Pursuant to 8 NYCRR 276.6 of the Commissioner’s regulations, I have taken administrative notice of the records on file with the New York State Education Department regarding petitioner and the school. Brilla’s expansion will be in conjunction with expansions, also to serve students in grades 9 through 12, of three other charter schools—Girls Preparatory Charter School of the Bronx, Girls Preparatory Charter School of New York, and Boys Preparatory Charter School of the Bronx (the “Prep Schools”). The approved revisions for Brilla and for the Prep Schools would add a “joint high school program” to each charter for Brilla and the Prep Schools, which will operate at one site, creating what would be known as “Vertex Partnership Academies” to be managed by a newly formed not-for-profit charter management organization, Ventoux Partnership Network, Inc. (see SUNY Memorandum, available at https://www.suny.edu/about/leadership/board-of-trustees/meetings/webcastdocs/IIIB2_Brilla%20and%20Public%20Prep%20Revision%20Resolution.pdf [last accessed June 10, 2021]; Minutes of a Meeting of the Charter Schools Committee of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York held on Wednesday, December 23, 2020, available at https://www.suny.edu/about/leadership/board-of-trustees/meetings/webcastdocs/Minutes%20Dec%2023,%202020%20Charter%20School%20Committee.pdf [last accessed June 10, 2021]; and SUNY Charter Schools Institute Summary of Findings, available at https://www.suny.edu/about/leadership/board-of-trustees/meetings/webcastdocs/IIIB2%20Brilla%20and%20Public%20Prep%20Vertex%20Summary%20of%20Performance.pdf [last accessed June 10, 2021]).
[3] The revision materials were received by the State Education Department on May 21, 2021, to be acted upon by the Board of Regents on or before August 19, 2021 (Education Law § 2852 [5-a])
[4] While I am obligated by the statutory criteria, and by respondent DOE’s admissions, to sustain petitioner’s appeal in this instance, this decision—that petitioner is entitled either to a co-location or to an offer of private or other publicly-owned space for the school—should not be interpreted as a determination regarding the legality of the creation, authorization, or operation of the proposed “joint high school program” or Vertex Partnership Academies
[5] 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).
[6] As explained in footnote 2, supra, Brilla’s expansion is in conjunction with the revisions to the Prep Schools’ charters—expansions for which an award is being issued contemporaneously with the instant decision. The parties shall take into account that both petitioner and the Prep Schools will contribute students to the total enrollment at the “joint high school” program, which will operate from a single location, so that there is no duplication in calculating payments.