Appeal of DAWN FIORE, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Mamaroneck Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,669

(January 8, 2026)

Ingerman Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent, Camille E. Curry, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Mamaroneck Union Free School District (the “respondent” or “board”) denying her child (the “student”) transportation to a nonpublic school.  The appeal must be dismissed.

By email dated June 9, 2025, respondent’s supervisor of transportation denied petitioner’s transportation request on behalf of the student to a nonpublic school for the 2025-2026 school year because the request was late and granting it would result in additional cost to respondent.  By email dated June 26, 2025, petitioner appealed the supervisor of transportation’s decision to respondent’s superintendent.  By letter dated June 30, 2025, respondent’s superintendent denied the appeal on the same bases.  By letter dated July 1, 2025, respondent’s district clerk advised petitioner that respondent’s board of education would meet July 7, 2025, to consider petitioner’s further appeal.  By letter dated July 10, 2025, respondent’s district clerk advised petitioner that the board had affirmed the superintendent’s decision to deny petitioner’s transportation request.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner claims her late transportation request was reasonable under the circumstances because the student’s enrollment in the nonpublic school was a last-minute family decision made after April 1, and therefore petitioner could not have requested transportation prior to the April 1 deadline.

Respondent contends that its decision was rationally based and reasonable, that adding the student to any existing route would impose an additional cost on the district, and that petitioner did not provide a reasonable explanation for the late request.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3635 (2), a parent or guardian must submit a written request for transportation no later than the first day of April preceding the school year for which transportation is sought or, if the parent or guardian did not reside in the district as of April 1, within 30 days after establishing residency in the district.  The purpose of this deadline is to enable districts to budget funds and make necessary arrangements to provide transportation reasonably and economically (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  However, a district may not reject a request for transportation as late if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay (Education Law § 3635 [2]; Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295).  In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the board of education to determine whether a parent or guardian has offered a reasonable explanation for submitting a late request (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  On appeal, the Commissioner will not set aside the board’s determination unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; 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).

It is undisputed that the transportation request was submitted after the April 1 deadline.  Accordingly, respondent could only grant this request if petitioner offered a reasonable explanation for the delay or if the transportation could be provided at no additional cost.  Petitioner has failed to prove either of these conditions (Appeal of Wilson, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,254; Appeal of Sarant, 41 id. 70, Decision No. 14,617; Appeal of McNair, 33 id. 419, Decision No. 13,098).

The Commissioner has consistently held that a belated decision to enroll a child in a nonpublic school is not a reasonable explanation for the late submission of a transportation request (Appeal of Students with Disabilities, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,823; Appeal of Jerome, 56 id., Decision No. 17,005; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).

Even absent a reasonable explanation for the delay, a school district must grant a late transportation request if it can provide the requested transportation under existing arrangements at no additional cost (Appeal of Doe, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,295; Appeal of Meyerson, 46 id. 421, Decision No. 15,552; Appeal of Capeling, 46 id. 400, Decision No. 15,545).  Where a late transportation request would result in additional cost, however, the district may deny such request (Appeal of B.S.M.A., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,557; Appeal of R.D.W., 31 id., Decision No. 12,568).

Respondent has met its burden to show that adding the student would result in additional cost to the district.  Respondent provided evidence showing that adding the student to the existing route would require the acquisition of a larger bus because the current bus is already at maximum capacity.  This acquisition represents an additional cost to the district, and therefore the district may deny petitioner’s late request for transportation.

Finally, as to petitioner’s request for reimbursement for transportation costs, the Commissioner has no authority to award monetary damages, costs, or reimbursements in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 (Appeal of Wilson, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,254; Appeal of D.B., 57 id., Decision No. 17,244; Application of Kolbmann, 48 id. 370, Decision No. 15,888).

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE