Appeal of STEPHELENECIE CALIXTE, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Roosevelt Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,500

(September 23, 2024)

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Anthony J. Fasano and Ciara J. Villalona-Lockhart, Esqs., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Roosevelt Union Free School District (“respondent”) denying transportation of her child (the “student”) to a charter school.  This appeal must be dismissed.

On May 8, 2024, petitioner contacted respondent to inquire whether the student was registered for transportation to the charter school he attended last year.[1]  On May 20, 2024, respondent replied that it had not received a request for transportation.  That same day, petitioner submitted a transportation request for the 2024-2025 school year.  Petitioner explained that the request was late because she had been caring for her newborn child.  Respondent denied the request on June 7, 2024 and this appeal ensued.

Petitioner suggests that her late request should be excused because she recently had a baby.  She also argues that respondent never sent a reminder to parents to complete transportation request.

Respondent contends that petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof and that its denial of her late request was reasonable.

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 (Education Law § 3635 [2]).  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).  On appeal, the Commissioner will not set aside the 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).

Respondent did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s transportation request.  Petitioner generally asserts that she missed the deadline due to “managing life with a newborn.”  However, such family-related circumstances are insufficient to excuse a late transportation request (e.g., Appeal of J.L.I., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,163; Appeal of Abrams, 50 id., Decision No. 16,120 Appeal of S.W. and D.W., 49 id. 67, Decision No. 15,960).

I am also unpersuaded by petitioner’s assertion that her delay should be excused because respondent did not remind her of the deadline.  As the Commissioner has previously held, a board of education has no legal obligation to remind parents of the April 1 deadline (Appeal of Casey and Hayden-Casey, 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,489; Appeal of J.L.I., 57 id., Decision No. 17,163; Appeal of Rivera and Figueroa, 52 id., Decision No. 16,449).  Nonetheless, in this case, the record indicates that respondent informed parents of the deadline via email, automated phone calls, and its website.

Finally, 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 student would be $7,845.  Petitioner did not respond to this assertion.  Therefore, I find that petitioner’s requested transportation would impose additional costs upon respondent.  As such, petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE