Appeal of EVENA SUMRA, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Dobbs Ferry Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,558

(April 28, 2025)

Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Julie M. Shaw, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Dobbs Ferry Union Free School District (“respondent”) denying her child (the “student”) transportation to a nonpublic school for the 2024-2025 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner, a district resident, asserts that the student customarily spends his summers with a family member in Grenada.  On July 1, 2024, a hurricane struck where the student was staying.  After a few days, the student was “evacuated safely back to the United States.”  Petitioner asserts that the student’s “mental health and emotional state … deteriorated” thereafter, which informed her decision to enroll him at The Windward School, a nonpublic school (“Windward”). 

On September 17, 2024, the student’s mother requested transportation to Windward for the 2024-2025 school year.  Respondent denied this request because petitioner did not identify a reasonable explanation for the delay and granting the request would result in additional costs.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on October 24, 2024.

Petitioner argues that her late request should be excused due to the “historic unforeseen catastrophic weather event” in Grenada.  Petitioner further asserts that respondent currently transports six district children to Windward and could accommodate the student with “minimal impact.” 

Respondent argues that it reasonably denied petitioner’s request as it was late and would impose additional costs.

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).  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).

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). 

Petitioner has not established a clear legal right to her requested relief. 

A hurricane is undoubtedly a “circumstance[ ] beyond [one’s] control” that could excuse submission of a late transportation request (Cornerstone Christian School, et al., 30 Ed Dept Rep 452, Decision No. 12,532).  The hurricane, however, did not cause petitioner’s delay in requesting transportation; it caused her to consider enrolling the student in a nonpublic school.  A belated decision to enroll a student in a nonpublic school has long been held to constitute an unreasonable explanation (see Appeal of A.S., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,527; Appeal of Hollander, 59 id., Decision No. 17,849).  To the extent petitioner asserts that enrollment at Windward was necessary to address the student’s social and emotional needs, she has not established that respondent’s district could not do so.  Indeed, respondent’s superintendent indicates in an affidavit that the district would be “pleased to welcome the student back and to ascertain his current needs.”

Petitioner also argues that the student could use a current bus route operated by respondent without cost to the district.  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).

Respondent indicates that the transportation agreement applicable to this bus route imposes a per pupil cost structure.[1]  As such, the addition of the student to the route would cost $3,995.  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise respond to this contention.  Therefore, respondent was not obligated to accommodate the student under the circumstances (see Appeal of Dumerlin, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,756; Appeal of R.O., 40 id. 137, Decision No. 14,441).  

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE