Appeal of BRIDGET BRIGANDI, on behalf of her children, from action of the Board of Education of the Warwick Valley Central School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,645

(October 28, 2025)

Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Beth L. Harris, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges a determination of the Board of Education of the Warwick Valley Central School District (“respondent”) denying her two children (the “students”) transportation to a nonpublic school for the 2025-2026 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed. 

Petitioner and the students reside in respondent’s district.  In March 2025, petitioner requested transportation for the students to the Tuxedo Park School, a nonpublic school.  Respondent utilized the mapping software Google Maps, its usual practice, which calculated the distance between petitioner’s home and the Tuxedo Park School as 17 miles.  As such, respondent denied petitioner’s request on March 31, 2025.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner argues that a route exists between her home and the Tuxedo Park School that is less than 15 miles.  Petitioner argues that this route, which includes a privately-owned road, constitutes the “nearest available route” between her home and the school (Education Law § 3635 [1] [a]).  She requests a finding that the students are entitled to the requested transportation. 

Respondent argues that it reasonably calculated the mileage between petitioner’s home and the Tuxedo Park School to be greater than 15 miles.

A school district must provide transportation for all children attending grades kindergarten through eight who live between 2 and 15 miles from school and for all children attending grades 9 through 12 who live between 3 and 15 miles from school, the distances in each case being measured by the nearest available route from home to school (Education Law § 3635 [1] [a]; Appeal of Lachman, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,039; Appeal of Schwab, 47 id.  73, Decision No. 15,630).  Transportation for a lesser or greater distance than that set forth in statute may only be provided upon approval by the voters of the district (Education Law § 3635 [1] [a]; Appeal of Lachman, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,039; Appeal of Bittlingmaier, 45 id. 213, Decision No. 15,305).  If such transportation is provided, it must be offered equally to all students in like circumstances residing in the district (Education Law § 3635 [1] [a]; Appeal of Lachman, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,039).

A board of education has broad discretion to determine how to provide transportation.  In making that determination, a board may consider safety, convenience, efficiency, and cost.  A board has both the authority and the responsibility to resolve difficult questions that arise when balancing the overall efficiency and economy of a transportation system against the convenience of individual students (Appeal of Bougiamas, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,306; Appeal of A.P., 48 id. 380, Decision No. 15,891; Appeal of Brizell, 48 id. 128, Decision No. 15,814).

The Commissioner will uphold a district’s transportation determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion (Appeal of Bougiamas, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,306; 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 met her burden of proof.  Respondent’s supervisor of transportation indicates that petitioner’s proposed route included travel on a private road utilized by the Tuxedo Park Sewer Plant.  A school district may, but is not obligated to, provide transportation over private roads (Appeal of Freeman, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,980; Appeal of Bedell, 31 id. 35, Decision No. 12,560; Appeal of Taylor, 26 id. 255, Decision No. 11,747).  Even assuming that respondent was obligated to utilize this road, however, respondent has submitted photographs indicating that a fence prevents access to the road.  Signs on the fence include the notations “Restricted Access” and “Authorized Personnel Only.”  While petitioner indicates that she received permission to access the private road, she does not assert that she obtained permission for respondent to operate a school bus thereon.[1]  As such, petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to transportation to and from the Tuxedo Park School (Appeal of Sadam, 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,565; Appeal of A.H., 64 id., Decision No. 18,439; Appeal of Leslie, 63 id., Decision No. 18,355).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE