Appeal of YANINA RAMIREZ RAFFERTY and JOSEPH G. RAFFERTY, on behalf of their children, from action of the Board of Education of the Irvington Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,468

(August 14, 2024)

Ingerman Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Stephanie Bellantoni, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the determination of the Board of Education of the Irvington Union Free School District (“respondent”) denying their children (the “students”) transportation to a nonpublic school.  The appeal must be dismissed.

On April 22, 2024, petitioners requested transportation on behalf of the students to a nonpublic school for the 2024-2025 school year.  Respondent denied the request because it was submitted after the April 1 deadline (Education Law § 3635 [2]).  In accordance with its practice, respondent offered to provide transportation to the students at petitioners’ expense, which petitioners declined.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioners argue that the untimeliness of their request should be excused because they were caring for an elderly relative.

Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed because its denial of petitioners’ late transportation request was not arbitrary or capricious.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3635 (2), a parent or guardian must submit a written request for transportation no later than the first day of April preceding the school year for which transportation is sought or, if the parent or guardian did not reside in the district as of April 1, within 30 days after establishing residency in the district.  The purpose of this deadline is to enable districts to budget funds and make necessary arrangements to provide transportation reasonably and economically (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  However, a district may not reject a request for transportation as late if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay (Education Law § 3635 [2]; Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295).  In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the board of education to determine whether a parent or guardian has offered a reasonable explanation for submitting a late request (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  The Commissioner will not set aside a board’s determination unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she 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).

On this record, I find that respondent did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ late transportation request.  Petitioners assert that they had a “major breakdown in communication” after a “crisis in the fall” that required one of them to become a caregiver for an elderly relative.  While I empathize with petitioners’ situation, it was ultimately their responsibility to submit a timely transportation request to respondent (Appeal of J.L.I., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,163; Appeal of S.W. and D.W., 49 id. 67, Decision No. 15,960).  Thus, respondent did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioners’ excuse for their delay was not reasonable, particularly given that their family circumstances occurred several months before April 2024 (see e.g. Appeal of Abrams, 50 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,120; Appeal of Parks, 31 id. 249, Decision No. 12,633).[1]

Even absent a reasonable explanation for the delay, a school district must grant a late transportation request if it can provide the requested transportation under existing transportation arrangements at no additional cost (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Meyerson, 46 id. 421, Decision No. 15,552; Appeal of Capeling, 46 id. 400, Decision No. 15,545).  Where a late transportation request would result in additional cost, however, the district may deny such request.  The Commissioner has consistently sustained denials of untimely applications for transportation where the transportation requested would impose additional costs upon the school district (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).

Here, respondent’s assistant superintendent for business and operations estimates that the cost to transport the students would be between $2,500 and $5,000.  Petitioners submit no evidence in response.  Therefore, I find that petitioners’ requested transportation would impose additional costs upon respondent.  Consequently, respondent did not act arbitrarily in denying petitioners’ request (Appeal of H.G.H., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,818).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE