Decision No. 18,655
Appeal of MICHAEL RANFONE, on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District regarding transportation.
Decision No. 18,655
(November 18, 2025)
Guercio & Guercio LLP, attorneys for respondent, Eric Levine, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges a determination of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District (“respondent” or “board”) denying his child (the “student”) transportation to a nonpublic school for the 2025-2026 school year. The appeal must be dismissed.
Petitioner and the student reside in respondent’s district. On June 20, 2025, petitioner requested transportation for the student to St. Dominic’s High School, a nonpublic school. By letter dated July 9, 2025, respondent denied this request as it was submitted after the April 1 deadline. Petitioner appealed this determination to respondent as required by board policy 8413.[1] By letter dated July 15, 2025, respondent’s district clerk notified petitioner that the board would consider his appeal at its next meeting on August 20, 2025. This appeal ensued.
Petitioner argues that there are several local children who already take a bus to get to the non-public school. As such, petitioner suggests that accommodating the student would involve little to no cost. He requests a finding that the student is entitled to the requested transportation.
Respondent argues that the appeal must be dismissed as premature. On the merits, respondent argues that its actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The appeal must be dismissed as premature. 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]).
A board of education may adopt rules governing appeals of district decisions and may impose timelines in connection therewith (Appeal of Halpern, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,480). Any such policy must be reasonable and clearly communicated to parents (Appeal of S.R. and T.J.R., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,357).
At the time this appeal was commenced, petitioner’s appeal to respondent remained pending.[2] While I empathize with petitioner’s desire for an expeditious decision, he has not demonstrated that respondent’s internal appeal policy is unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as premature (Appeal of G.H., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,409; Appeal of Lee, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,506; Appeal of C.D. and A.D., 58 id., Decision No. 17,500).
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] That policy provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll late requests” for nonpublic transportation “shall be considered by the Board of Education on the basis of each case’s merits.”
[2] There is no basis in the record to conclude that this appeal was constructively denied (see Appeal of G.H., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,409; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 58 id., Decision No. 17,445). The district clerk promptly acknowledged receipt of petitioner’s appeal and indicated that it would be resolved at the next board meeting.