Michael Cantatore v. Board of Education of the Carlstadt-East Rutherford Regional High School District, Bergen County, 5/25/2023. (#153-23)

153-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Michael Cantatore,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Carlstadt-East
Rutherford Regional High School District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner, a teacher employed by the Carlstadt-East Rutherford Board of Education (Board),
challenged the Board’s adoption of the district’s Grading Policy #2624, which has been in place –
uninterrupted and unchanged – since it was established in April 2004. 	Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that
Policy #2624 was modified on the Carlstadt-East Rutherford District website in February 2021, such that
the policy’s stated adoption date of April 2004 was falsified. 	The Board contended that no change has
been made to the Board’s Grading Policy since 2004, on the district’s website or elsewhere.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this matter, and the case is ripe for
summary decision; in order to bring a complaint to hear a controversy or dispute arising under the
school laws, a person must be an interested party; N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.2 defines interested person to mean
a person who will be substantially, specifically, and directly affected by the outcome of a controversy
before the Commissioner; the Commissioner has consistently declined to hear cases brought by
petitioners who would not be affected by the outcome in a direct and meaningful way; here, the
petitioner lacks standing to bring the within complaint before the Commissioner as it is students within
the school district who would be impacted by the policy in question, not the petitioner; further, the
petition was untimely filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	The ALJ concluded that the petition must be
dismissed for lack of standing and untimeliness. Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision
was granted. The petition was dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner lacks
standing and that the petition of appeal was untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3. Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition was
dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. 05498-22
Agency Dkt. No. 112-5/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Michael Cantatore,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Carlstadt-East
Rutherford Regional High School District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner
lacks standing and that the petition of appeal was untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal
is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
153-23
May 25, 2023
May 25, 2023

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 112-5/22
MICHAEL CANTATORE,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CARLSTADT-
EAST RUTHERFORD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Michael Cantatore, petitioner, pro se
Kerri A. Wright, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: January 5, 2023 	Decided: April 26, 2023
BEFORE ELISSA MIZZONE TESTA, ALJ
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF CASE
Petitioner, Michael Cantatore, challenges respondent, the Board of Education of
the Carlstadt-East Rutherford 	Regional 	High School 	District, Bergen County (“the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
Board”) adoption of the District’s Grading Policy. 	Petitioner is an employee/teacher of
the 	respondent. 	On 	July 	5, 	2022, 	this 	matter 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law (“OAL”) from the New Jersey Department of Education.
On July 25, 2022, pursuant to a telephone conference held with the undersigned
and the parties, respondent was given leave to file a Motion for Summary Decision. On
September 1, 2022, respondent filed same. 	On September 28, 2022, petitioner filed
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgement. 	On October 11, 2022, respondent
filed a Reply Brief and on October 31, 2022, petitioner filed a Reply Brief. 	On January
5, 2023, the final responsive papers were submitted, and the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The facts as set forth by respondent by way of Certification of Dario Sforza, Ed.D
and attached to respondent’s Brief in Support of Summary Decision as Exhibit A, are as
follows:
Petitioner 	is 	a 	teacher 	and 	an 	employee 	of 	the 	Carlstadt-East 	Rutherford
Regional School District Board of Education.
The Board has adopted Policy Number 2624, “Grading System” (the “Grading
Policy”), which was created in April 2004. The Board’s Grading Policy specifically
provides that:
The Superintendent shall develop and continually review in
consultation with teaching staff members, parent(s) or legal
guardians(s), and pupils, a grading program appropriate to
the course of study and maturity of pupils. The final decision
on any contested grade will be the responsibility of the
Superintendent. A pupil classified as disabled will be graded
in 	accordance 	with 	his/her 	Individualized 	Educational
Program (IEP) or the Section 504 Plan.
The Board states that the Grading Policy has been in place, uninterrupted, since its
creation in April 2004 and was the Grading Policy that was in place at the time relevant to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
petitioner’s claims. 	No changes have been made to the Grading Policy at any point in
time since its creation in April 2004.
As the District’s Superintendent, Dr. Sforza implements the Board’s Grading
Policy throughout the District. 	The implementation of the Board’s Grading Policy is
subject to flexibility and District practice. 	This includes the “no grade lower” practice by
which there is a minimum threshold posted grade which might vary from a teacher’s
gradebook grade. 	Under this practice, a gradebook grade (which is reflective of the
teacher’s personal calculation of a student’s average marking period performance in
class) would warrant an automatic posted grade consistent with the “no grade lower”
threshold number.
The “no grade lower” practice ranking has been the district’s practice for over thirty
years. 	Over the past two years, and in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,
Dr. Sforza implemented the Board’s grading policy in such a way that the threshold grade
for the district’s “no grade lower” practice was set at fifty-five (55). 	Under practice, the
posted grades of fifty-five are automatically inputted as the lowest grade a teacher was
permitted to give a student during the period covering January 1, 2021 through June 30,
2021.
Dr. Sforza made the decision to implement the Grading Policy in this manner
consistent with his authority as Superintendent and in harmony with the Board’s Grading
Policy, which provides that “[t]he Superintendent shall develop and continually review in
consultation with teaching staff members, parent(s) or legal guardian(s), and pupils, a
grading program appropriate to the course of study and maturity of pupils.” 	Difficulties
facing District students as a result of the global pandemic, such as learning loss, led to
the decision to implement the Grading Policy and its “no grade lower” District practice in
this manner, as Dr. Sforza determined this course of action to best serve the district’s
students and their specific learning needs. 	This is not the only implementation practice
enacted throughout the district in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 	In fact, other
practices enacted include the Road Back to Becton 1648 Restart Recover Plan 2020-
2021, the Road Forward District Plan and Policy 1648, and the Safe Return to In Person

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
Instruction and Continuity of Service pursuant to the Federal American Rescue Plan Act,
Section 	2001(i)Z 	– 	2022-2023. 	However, 	petitioner 	took 	issue 	only 	with 	the
implementation of the Grading Policy.
A teacher was permitted to request a lower grade than the required threshold in
the past few years so long as they met the requirements on a “Request for Grade Lower
than fifty-five” form and appropriately justified their reasons in a short narrative and
checked off the interventions implemented to assist each child to succeed. Discretion for
approval/denial of a teacher’s request is made by the department supervisor and
supervisor of guidance. 	Respondent alleges that the Petitioner attempted to utilize this
practice to request lower grades but did not meet the minimum requirements stated
above and altered the form to suit his needs, including after he was warned not to do so.
Moreover, Dr. Sforza’s wide statutory authority to implement Board policies by
virtue of his position as Superintendent is also reinvigorated in myriad in other Board
policies. Specifically:
• 	Board Policy 1230, “Superintendent’s Duties”, states that:
• 	“. . . Function: The Superintendent shall serve as Chief
Executive and Administrative Officer of the district by
implementing 	policies 	established 	by 	the 	Board 	of
Education and by discharging the duties imposed on
his/her office by law. . . .”
• 	Board Policy 2200, “Curriculum Content”, created in
July 2016, provides: “The Superintendent is responsible
for 	implementing 	the 	curriculum 	approved 	by 	the
Board.”
• 	Board Policy 2210, “Curriculum Development”, created
in April 2004, provides: “ . . As educational leader of the
district, the Superintendent shall be responsible to the
Board 	for 	the 	development 	of 	curriculum 	and 	shall
establish procedures for curriculum development that
ensure 	the 	effective 	participation 	of 	teaching 	staff

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
members, pupils, the community, and members of the
Board. . . .”
• 	Board Policy 2220, “Adoption of Courses”, created April
2004, provides: “The Superintendent is responsible for
the 	continuous 	evaluation 	of 	the 	courses 	of 	study
against the educational goals of the Board and shall
recommend to the Board such new or altered courses
of study as are deemed to be in the best interests of the
pupils of this district.”
• 	Board Policy 2610, Educational Program Evaluation”,
created April 2004, provides: “The Board of Education
directs the Superintendent to develop and implement a
systematic plan for the continuous evaluation of the
educational 	program 	against 	the 	educational 	goals
established by this Board.”
The Superintendent’s intimate and extensive involvement in implementing the
Board’s policies, especially those which touch upon the academic performance of District
students is well-documented throughout the Board’s many policies.
However, 	Petitioner 	did 	not 	agree 	with 	the 	manner 	in 	which 	Dr. 	Sforza
implemented 	the 	Board’s 	Grading 	Policy 	in 	response 	to 	the 	ongoing 	COVID-19
pandemic, and thus filed a complaint with OFAC which resulted in Case #INV-010-21.
OFAC’s decision denied petitioner’s complaint and noted that: 	“N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)
provides that boards of education have the authority to set policies for school districts.
N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20 provides that Superintendents have the authority to implement those
policies. 	Accordingly, the Superintendent has the authority to implement the Board’s
policy for its Grading System, Policy #2624.”
Petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Education the OFAC’s decision
because he alleges “the Board of Education never discussed and approved [an] updated”
Grading Policy, and because Dr. Sforza “adopt[ed] a different policy, updat[ed] this policy
on the district’s website and implement[ed] it without approval of” the Board. 	According
to Respondent, the Board’s Grading Policy has not been updated. 	Dr. Sforza did not
adopt a new policy nor update the district’s website, and that implementing policies are

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
expressly 	within 	the 	realm 	of 	the 	Superintendent’s 	powers 	pursuant 	to 	statute,
regardless.
Petitioner 	also 	raised 	instances 	of 	“grade 	falsification.” 	However, 	these
allegations are not before the Commissioner as, per petitioner’s own admission, his
complaint to OFAC was “solely based on the [assertion] that Board Policy #2624 (the
Grading Policy], which was adopted on April 14, 2004, was changed on the district’s
website . . .”.1
In February 2022, the District had a Policy Audit conducted by Strauss Esmay.
According to the cover letter sent by Strauss Esmay to the District upon completion of the
audit, the audit reviewed “existing bylaws, policies, and/or regulations. . . ” 	Emphasis
added. The Strauss Esmay Policy Audit Summary page generated as a result of the
audit shows that the Board’s Grading Policy reviewed during the audit was Grading
System Policy 2624, adopted in April 2004 -- not some new policy from February 2021 as
petitioner alleges. 	Moreover, the Strauss Esmay audit labeled the existing Grading
System Policy #2624 from 2004 as “Good" with “Update Not Needed” for being in
“compliance and does not need to be revised.”
It is the Board’s position that no change has been made to the Board’s Grading
Policy since 2004, on the district’s website, or anywhere else.
Cantatore argues that in February 2021, he accessed both Policy #2624 and
Regulation #2624 several times and they were the same document. 	The next time he
accessed Policy #2624, he noticed that the detailed policy was replaced by a three-
paragraph policy. See Ex. 6, attached to petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for Summary
Decision. 	Cantatore alleges that policy #2624 was modified on the Carlstadt-East
Rutherford District website in February 2021, while possessing a falsified adoption date
of April 2004. 	In addition, the three-paragraph policy replaced the original detailed
Grading Policy and was never approved at a Board meeting.
1 The issue of grade falsification was not made part of the Petition that was transmitted to the OAL.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A party may move for summary decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), which “may
be rendered if the papers and discovery, which have been filed, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged
and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 	This Motion shares
similarities with the summary judgment rule established in New Jersey Court Rules, R.
4:46-2. See Judson v. People’s Bank and Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954).
Pursuant to this standard, all inferences of doubt are drawn against the movant and in
favor of the party against whom the Motion is directed. 	Id. at 75. 	Here, both the
respondent and the petitioner are moving parties. 	Summary Judgment is precluded
when it is determined that “there exists a genuine issue of material fact.” 	Brill v.
Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Respondent argues that the Motion for Summary Decision should be granted
because petitioner lacks standing. 	Standing is a threshold justiciability determination
about whether a litigant is entitled to bring an action before a court or other tribunal.
Herron v. Montclair Bd. of Educ., EDU 14067-13, Comm’r decision, (Jun. 2, 2014)
(citing, Stubaus v. Whitman, 339 N.J. Super. 38, 47 (App. Div. 2001)). 	Restrictions on
standing 	apply 	to 	those 	who 	initiate 	administrative 	proceedings 	before 	the
Commissioner. 	The Commissioner has clarified through regulation as well as case law
that 	only 	an 	“interested 	person,” 	i.e., 	one 	who 	has 	standing, 	may 	initiate 	such
proceedings. 	Bedminster Educ. Ass’n v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDU 6720-05,
Comm’r decision (June 16, 2006). “[I]n order to bring a complaint to hear a controversy
or dispute arising under the school laws, a person must be an interested party.” S.J. v.
Mountain Lakes Bd. of Educ., EDU 7081-03, Initial Decision, (Oct. 7, 2003).
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.2 defines “interested person(s)” to mean “a person(s) who will be
substantially, specifically, and directly affected by the outcome of a controversy before
the Commissioner.” 	Consequently, petitioners must show that they will “be affected by
the outcome in a direct and meaningful way” before they may proceed in a contested
case. U.K. & G.K. ex rel D.K. v. Clifton Bd. of Educ., 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 71; Kenwood

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
v. Montclair Bd. of Educ., EDU 8858-81, Initial Decision, (Apr. 23, 1982), adopted,
Comm’r 	(June 	14, 	1982)). 	Thus, 	to 	have 	standing, 	a 	complaining 	party 	must
demonstrate “some measurable amount of detrimental impact on the complaining
party’s personal rights.” S.J. v. Mountain Lakes Bd. of Educ., EDU 7081-03, Initial
Decision, (Oct. 7, 2003) (citing, Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 491 (1998)).
A deficiency in standing is fatal to a petition such as the one at issue here. “The
dismissal of cases brought by litigants who will not be effected by the outcome in a
direct and meaningful way is required by this regulation.” S.J. v. Mountain Lakes Bd. of
Educ., EDU 7081-03, Initial Decision, (Oct. 7, 2003) (citing, S.R. and E.D.R. o/b/o
E.D.R., Jr. v. Montague Bd. of Educ., EDU 5300-03, 201 AGEN LEXIS 583 (Oct. 3,
2001)). 	Thus, the Commissioner has consistently declined to hear cases brought by
petitioners who would not be affected by the outcome in a direct and meaningful way.
See, e.g., U.K. & G.K. o/b/o D.K. v. Clifton Bd. of Educ., 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 73 (Nov.
20, 	1992) 	(parents 	objecting 	to 	discipline 	of 	someone 	else’s 	child); 	Kenwood 	v.
Montclair Bd. of Educ., EDU 8858-81, Initial Decision, (April 23, 1982), adopted,
Comm’r (June 14, 1982), aff’d, St. Bd. (Sept. 8, 1982) (concerned citizen seeking to
rewrite school attendance policy); Lobis v. Maple Shade Bd. of Educ., EDU 3630-79,
Initial Decision, (June 11, 1980), adopted, Comm’r (Aug. 11, 1980), aff’d, St. Bd. (Nov.
5, 1980) (parent whose child no longer attended school complaining about quality of
education received by remaining students); Delaney v. Woodbridge Bd. of Educ., EDU
382-78, Initial Decision, (Dec. 12, 1979), adopted, Comm’r (June 11, 1980) (taxpayer
questioning propriety of filling job vacancies); Ricardelli v. Newark Bd. of Educ., EDU
1894-79, Initial Decision, (Sept. 26, 1979), adopted, Comm’r (Nov. 16, 1979) (taxpayer
challenging legality of school board’s decision to transfer personnel); G.G. v. New
Providence Bd. of Educ., 1975 S.L.D. 502 (parent of high school graduate challenging
attendance policy).
Petitioner here cannot make the requisite showing of standing. 	To illustrate,
even if the Board’s Grading Policy, or a modification of it, did violate some provision of
the school laws or the administrative code, it is not petitioner who would be harmed -- if
anyone, it would be the district students who are negatively impacted by the violative
policy. 	As such, petitioner lacks standing just as in Herron, where the Commissioner

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
determined that a teacher advocating for District students who experienced academic
problems, while “commendable”, did “not add up to the concrete, personal stake in
respondent’s current actions which standing contemplates.” 	The Commissioner further
highlighted that no district student or parent had joined the petitioner in prosecuting the
matter. Id. 	Thus, the Commissioner concluded, “there are no parties in this case with
concrete interests adverse to the actions which respondent has proposed, and to which
petitioner objects.” Id.
I agree with the Respondent that the similarities between the circumstances at
issue in Herron and the instant matter are eerily striking. 	Petitioner apparently has
taken it upon himself to advocate on behalf of the students because he personally
disagrees with the manner in which the Superintendent implemented the Board’s
Grading Policy. 	However, the result is, just as it was in Herron, then, that petitioner
lacks standing. 	This deficiency is inexorably fatal to the instant Petition such that
respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision should be granted on this basis alone.
Cantatore argues that he does not lack standing because this matter involves a
clear violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1c, which provides that boards of education have
the authority to set policies for school districts. 	However, he argues that the Board
failed to adopt the three-paragraph Grading Policy #2624 that currently appears on the
website. Unfortunately, Cantatore cannot and does not dispute that any District student
or parent has joined him in prosecuting this matter. 	Nor that he has had any concrete,
personal stake in respondent’s alleged actions which standing contemplates. 	N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.2 defines “interested person(s)” to mean “a person(s) who will be substantially,
specifically, 	and 	directly 	affected 	by 	the 	outcome 	of 	a 	controversy 	before 	the
Commissioner.” 	Consequently, petitioners must show that they will “be affected by the
outcome in a direct and meaningful way” before they may proceed in a contested
matter.
Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing of standing because it is not the
petitioner who would be harmed even if the Board’s Grading Policy, or modification of it,
did violate some provision of the school laws or the administrative code. Rather it would
be the district’s students who would be negatively impacted by the violative policy. 	I

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
CONCLUDE that petitioner lacks standing. Even though it has been concluded that the
matter 	should 	be 	dismissed, 	and 	Summary 	Decision 	be 	granted 	in 	favor 	of 	the
respondent 	because 	petitioner 	lacks 	standing, 	the 	issue 	of 	untimeliness 	will 	be
addressed.
Respondent also argues that the Motion for Summary Decision should be
granted because the petition is untimely. 	Even if petitioner had standing, the instant
petition should be dismissed as untimely. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) provides that a “petitioner
shall file a petition no later than the 90th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a
final order, ruling, or other action by the district board of education, individual party, or
agency, which is the subject of the requested contested case hearing. . .” The purpose
of this 90-day rule is to “provide a measure of repose and stability” and ensure “the
proper and efficient administration of the school laws” because it “gives school districts
the security of knowing that administrative decisions regarding the operation of the
school cannot be challenged after ninety -days.” 	Howell Tp., Mayor of Howell and
Council of Tp. of Howell v. Freehold Regional School District, EDU 2427-06, Initial
Decision (Oct. 5, 2006) (citing, Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Tp., 131 N.J. 572,
582 (1993)). Accordingly, the 90-day rule serves an important and “salutary purpose of
discouraging dilatoriness and providing a measure of repose in the conduct of school
affairs.” C.G. and R.G. v. Brick Tp. Bd. of Educ., EDU 110-06, Comm’r decision, (Mar.
24, 2006) (citing, Farrell v. Votator Division of Chemtron Corp., 62 N.J. 111, 115 (1973);
Ochs v. Federal Ins. Co., 90 N.J. 108, 112 (1982); Kaprow v. Berkeley Tp. Bd. of Educ.,
131 N.J. 572, 588 (1993)). For example, in Howell, the petitioners’ challenge to a board
policy adopted on May 10, 2004 which was filed on February 17, 2006, was dismissed
as untimely. Id.
The sole basis of Petitioner’s complaint to OFAC was the alleged change to the
Board’s Grading Policy on the District’s website. 	According to petitioner, this change
took place in February 2021. 	Respondent argues that even if this change did occur,
which respondent denies, February 2021 is far beyond 90-days prior to the filing of the
instant petition on May 25, 2022. 	And, even if petitioner’s complaint to OFAC could be
considered the date by which to measure timeliness here, the letter requesting an
OFAC investigation was sent on October 12, 2021 -- six months after the alleged

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
February 2021 alteration. 	See, Certification of Weston J. Kulick, Esq., (Exhibit “A”),
attached to Respondent’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision. Whichever
the measure respondent argues that the instant petition is untimely.
Cantatore argues that the response from the OFAC regarding OFAC Case #INV-
010-21 was mailed on April 28 th, 2022. 	See, Exh. #15 to petitioner’s Opposition. 	The
pro se petition for the appeal of OFAC Case #INV-101-21 was mailed out on May 25,
2022. 	See, Exh. #16 petitioner’s Opposition. 	Thus, according to Cantatore, only
twenty-seven (27) days elapsed from the day the OFAC response was received until the
pro se petition was mailed out. I find Respondent’s argument to be persuasive and
factually correct as to the timing of the filing of Cantatore’s Petition. Therefore, I
CONCLUDE that the instant petition should be dismissed as untimely pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
As the facts set forth above pertain to the arguments of lack of standing and
untimeliness of filing, I CONCLUDE that there are no issues of material fact and
Summary Decision should be granted in favor of respondent. 	There is no need to
further 	address 	the 	argument 	raised 	by 	respondent 	pertaining 	to 	the 	joinder 	of
indispensable parties.
Therefore, 	having 	reviewed 	both 	parties’ 	submissions, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that
Summary Decision should be granted in favor of the respondent dismissing Cantatore’s
petition because he lacks standing and further because the petition was untimely
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6A:3-1.3(i).
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision be and
hereby is GRANTED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	Initial 	Decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625-0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must
be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
April 26, 2023
DATE 	ELISSA MIZZONE TESTA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 26, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 26, 2023
EMT/sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05498-22
BRIEFS RELIED ON
For Petitioner:
Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision
Petitioner’s Opposition to respondent’s Reply.
For Respondent:
Respondent’s Motion for Summery Decision with Memorandum of Law and
Certification of Weston J. Kulick, Esq. and attached Exhibit A and Certification of
Dario Sforza, Ed.D. and attached Exhibits A-E.
Respondent’s Reply to petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision.