Appeal of J.K., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Spencerport Central School District regarding denial of access to school property.

Decision No. 18,665

(December 17, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Sara E. Colacino, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from alleged action of the Board of Education of the Spencerport Central School District (“respondent”) concerning, among other things, conditions upon her access to school property.  The appeal must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A petition must contain “a clear and concise statement of the petitioner’s claim showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and shall further contain a demand for the relief to which the petitioner deems himself/herself entitled” (8 NYCRR 275.10).  Such statement must be “sufficiently clear” to advise the respondent of the nature of the petitioner’s claim and of the specific act or acts of which the petitioner complains (id.).  Where the petitioner is not represented by counsel, the Commissioner will interpret this regulation liberally, absent prejudice to the opposing party (Appeal of D.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,244; Appeal of Stieffenhofer, 48 id. 231, Decision No. 15,846).

The petition in this appeal, two pages in length, does not satisfy the above standards.  It identifies the following grievances :

• A principal “has been making complaints about [petitioner’s] son for the past two years” and “suspended him … without … formal process”;
• “[S]chool administration, including [an unnamed] assistant principal, ha[ve] falsely accused and misrepresented” petitioner and the student;
• The district “placed a block on [petitioner], falsely claiming that [she] trespassed on school premises”;
• “[T]he administration falsely accused [petitioner] of being involved in a shoplifting incident based on a photo shared” by a local police department; and
• Respondent “failed to act” to support the student’s “learning and emotional disabilities.”

The petition is bereft of any contextual information, exhibits, or evidence to support these claims.  “It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving [an adjudicator] to … create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones” (United States v. Zannino, 895 F2d 1, 17 [1st Cir 1990]).

Moreover, the relief requested by petitioner is not available in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310.  For example, while petitioner requests that I investigate the conduct of a principal and assistant principal, an appeal to the Commissioner is appellate in nature and does not provide for investigations (Appeal of D.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,223; Appeal of Huffine, 48 id. 386, Decision No. 15,893).  Additionally, I lack authority to issue a public correction of allegedly false accusations made against petitioner and the student[1] or “[a] directive for the school to stop [its] defamatory and discriminatory practices.”  The Commissioner does not issue advisory opinions or declaratory rulings in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 (Appeal of He, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,299; Appeal of Leake, 57 id., Decision No. 17,235; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 411, Decision No. 15,899).[2]  Thus, even affording petitioner a liberal interpretation of 8 NYCRR § 275.10, I find that she has failed to set forth a clear and concise statement of her claim.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Appeal of M.D., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,321; see Application of a Student with a Disability, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,398; Appeal of C.P., 55 id., Decision No. 16,784). 8 NYCRR 275.10). 

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE