Appeal of T.C., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the South Jefferson Central School District regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,646

(November 3, 2025)

Davenport Law PLLC, attorneys for petitioner, Chad A. Davenport, Esq., of counsel

Ferrara Fiorenza PC, attorneys for respondent, Lindsay A.G. Plantholt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a non-final determination of the Board of Education of the South Jefferson Central School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not entitled to a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2164.  The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (8 NYCRR 276.9).

The Commissioner will not render an advisory opinion on an issue before it becomes justiciable (Appeal of Frey, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,308; Appeal of B.R. and M.R., 48 id. 291, Decision No. 15,861).  The Commissioner’s jurisdiction pursuant to Education Law § 310 is appellate in nature, and an action is not ripe for review by the Commissioner until it is final and results in an actual, concrete injury (Appeal of Kerley, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,915; Appeal of M.P., 59 id., Decision No. 17,848; Appeal of Parris, 51 id., Decision No. 16,261; see generally Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, 242 [2003]).

At the time this appeal was commenced, respondent had not yet rendered a decision on petitioner’s medical exemption request.  In an email dated October 10, 2025, respondent’s superintendent indicated that she planned to “reach out” to the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”), which would “review [her] medical exemption request … and make a recommendation to assist in [respondent’s] final determination” (see Appeal of E.C., 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,638).  And, in a subsequent email on October 14, 2025, the superintendent reiterated that “the district has not provided a final determination” regarding petitioner’s medical exemption request.  Counsel for petitioner nevertheless commenced this appeal a few days thereafter.  Because I lack jurisdiction to review non-final determinations, the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,765; Appeal of Student with a Disability, 58 id., Decision No. 17,649; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 52 id., Decision No. 16,415).[1]  I admonish counsel for petitioner to ensure that he only seeks review of final actions “result[ing] in … actual, concrete injur[ies]” (Appeal of A.O., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,518; Appeal of Kerley, 60 id., Decision No. 17,915; Appeal of M.P., 59 id., Decision No. 17,848).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE