Appeal of Annette Alicea, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the City School District for the City of Newburgh regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,668

(December 17, 2025)

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

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the City School District for the City of Newburgh (“respondent”) denying her child (the “student”) door-to-door transportation.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner and the student reside within respondent’s district.  Prior to the 2025-2026 school year, respondent transported the student between her home and the nonpublic school she attends.  Petitioner alleges that she submitted a transportation request for the 2025-2026 school year through the district’s web portal on April 1, 2025.  Respondent alleges that it received a request from petitioner on June 13, 2025, which it denied as untimely.  Sometime thereafter, respondent offered to transport the student to and from an existing bus stop that is a quarter mile from her home.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner alleges that respondent did not receive her April 1 request due to a “computer error.”  She states that she has submitted timely requests for the past 17 years.  Petitioner seeks a determination that she is entitled to transportation “to and from” her home.

Respondent asserts that petitioner has failed to prove that she submitted a timely request.  Respondent further contends that petitioner has not proven a reasonable explanation for her late request or that she is otherwise entitled to relief.

A board of education may exercise reasonable discretion when designating pick-up and drop-off points.  In establishing a pick-up point, a board must balance considerations of pupil safety and convenience, routing efficiency, and cost.  The law does not require a school district “to furnish transportation to a child directly to or from his or her home” (Education Law § 3635 [1] [d]).  Thus, a board has discretion to require students to walk to pick-up and drop-off points from which transportation will be provided.  It is the responsibility of the parent or guardian, not the district, to ensure that a child safely reaches the pick-up point (Appeal of E.F., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,186; Appeal of Brizell, 48 id. 128, Decision No. 15,814).

The Commissioner will uphold a district’s transportation determination unless it is arbitrary or capricious (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).

Assuming without deciding that petitioner made a timely transportation request, she has not proven a clear legal right to door-to-door transportation.  Respondent’s transportation director explains that the district attempts to “accommodate as many late transportation requests as possible” by offering transportation at existing bus stops.  As such, respondent offered the student transportation to and from a bus stop a quarter mile from her residence.  While petitioner argues that this stop is “located on a sharp turn with heavy traffic and no safe shoulder or sidewalk,” she submits no evidence to support this contention.  As such, petitioner has not met her burden of proving that respondent’s decision to deny door-to-door transportation to the student was arbitrary or capricious (Appeal of C.F. and J.F., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision 17,980; Appeal of E.F., 57 id., Decision No. 17,186; Appeal of W.H., 49 id., Decision No. 16,009). 

I have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE