C.R., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of Wyckoff, Bergen County, 5/6/26 (#157-26R)

157-26R
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 18685-25
Agency Dkt. No. 322-9/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.R., on behalf of minor child, M.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Wyckoff,
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.
In 	this 	matter, 	petitioner 	alleges 	that 	respondent’s 	investigation 	of a 	harassment,
intimidation, and bullying (HIB) incident she reported was not conducted in accordance with the
procedural requirements set forth in the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -
32, which resulted in a denial of due process. After respondent filed an answer, the matter was
transmitted to the OAL as a contested case.
According to the Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) treated an email from
respondent as a motion to dismiss the petition. 	Petitioner objected to the dismissal via email.
Thereafter, respondent submitted a letter brief and exhibits A through K in reply to petitioner’s
opposition email, and the ALJ closed the record.
Apparently without reviewing exhibits that petitioner requested to submit via Dropbox or
allowing her to respond to respondent’s letter brief and exhibits, the ALJ rendered factual findings

2
and recommended dismissal of the petition. 	The ALJ found that summary decision in favor of
respondent was appropriate because petitioner “only challenges the legality of the complaint, which
is not before the undersigned.” Initial Decision at 4-5. The ALJ also concluded that the matter was
“no longer a contested case before the Office of Administrative Law and respondents’ Motion for
Dismissal is ripe for determination.” Id. at 5.
Upon review, the Commissioner is constrained to remand the matter to the OAL. Summary
decision is not appropriate in this matter because material facts are contested regarding whether the
HIB investigation was conducted in accordance with the Act. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) (addressing
summary decision requirements). Furthermore, to the extent the ALJ concluded that petitioner failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted since she was not challenging respondent’s
ultimate determination that HIB did not occur, the Commissioner disagrees with that conclusion.
Petitioner may dispute whether respondent conducted its HIB investigation in accordance with the
Act, and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to make a finding in that regard. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9
(“The commissioner shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine . . . all controversies and disputes
arising under the school laws . . . .”). However, the Act does not entitle petitioner to money damages.
“The Legislature has conferred authority to enforce the anti-bullying statutes upon the
Commissioner of Education.” L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Reg’l Schs. Bd. of Educ., 381 N.J. Super.
465, 498 (App. Div. 2005), modified by, aff’d by, remanded, 189 N.J. 381 (2007). The Act requires
local boards of education to adopt and adhere to policies prohibiting HIB which address, among other
things, reporting procedures and investigation requirements. Id. at 498 (citing N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15);
Dunkley v. Bd. of Educ. of Greater Egg Harbor Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 216 F. Supp. 3d 485, 489 (D.N.J.
2016) (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15); J.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Sch. Dist.,
Commissioner Decision No. 416-16 (Dec. 9, 2016).

3
For instance, the Act requires districts to provide a means for parents to report HIB allegations
online in a confidential manner. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5). 	It further requires that HIB investigations
be completed promptly within 10 school days of the initial HIB complaint. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a).
The results of the investigation must be reported to the school superintendent within two school
days thereafter, and then to the board of education no later than the date of its next meeting. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6)(b), (c). After the results of the investigation are reported to the board, parents shall
be notified in writing of its nature and outcome within 5 school days. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). If
a parent requests a hearing before the Board upon receiving the results of the investigation, then
that hearing must be held within 10 days of the request. Ibid.
Should petitioner wish to proceed with her petition despite the unavailability of monetary
damages under the Act, she should be given the opportunity to present evidence in support of her
claim at the OAL so that a complete record can be presented to the Commissioner for review.
However, petitioner is advised that the OAL is not required to accept submissions via Dropbox or
other cloud-based storage service. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.7(b) (requiring parties to submit paper copies
of exhibits offered into evidence).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is rejected and the matter is remanded to the OAL for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 6, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	May 6, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 322-9/25
C.R. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD M.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
WYCKOFF BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
__________________________________
C.R., petitioner, pro se,
Vittorio S. LaPira, Esq., appearing on behalf of respondent (Wyckoff Board of
education)
Record Closed: January 12, 2026 	Decided: February 27, 2026
BEFORE MARIANNE B. ORTEGA, ALJ:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, 	C.R. 	challenges 	the 	respondent’s 	Wyckoff 	Board 	of 	Education
(District) investigation of her child’s, M.R., harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB)
complaint. 	On 	October 	28, 	2025 	this 	matter 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law (OAL) on October 28, 2025 as a contested case.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
2
A telephone prehearing was scheduled and conducted on December 1, 2025.
After 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	prehearing, 	a 	status 	conference 	was 	scheduled 	for
December 17, 2025. 	Prior to that date, petitioner emailed the undersigned and
respondent for “clarification of scope of appeal”. 	In her email petitioner stated that this
case is not about the substance of the HIB complaint. Instead, petitioner asserts, among
other things, that this case is about whether the District conducted “a legally compliant
HIB investigation under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.”
On December 12, 2025, respondent replied to petitioner’s assertion, arguing that
if petitioner is not challenging the ultimate determination, this matter requires dismissal
or a withdrawal.
On 	December 	17, 	2025, 	during 	the 	telephone 	prehearing 	conference,
respondent’s email was accepted as a Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner filed a response to
the Motion on January 7, 2026. 	Respondent sent a reply to the response on January
12, 2026, on which date the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Based on 	the 	testimony 	the 	parties 	provided and my 	assessment 	of 	their
credibility, together with the documents the parties provided and my evaluation of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
On January 29, 2025, Petitioner submitted her initial HIB 338 form and claimed
that the alleged defender had told petitioners’ daughter to kill herself on several
occasions.
On February 3, 2025, Petitioner notified the District of an additional incident
which allegedly occurred on January 31, 2025, where the same alleged defender tried
to intimidate the student by telling her not to speak to another student.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
3
On March 18, 2025, the superintendent of schools sent Petitioner a letter
indicating that the incidents did not satisfy all of the required elements of a HIB act
according to their anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act and the District’s policies.
On April 23, 2025, the board secretary sent a letter to Petitioner notifying her that
her request for hearing was granted and scheduled before the District to be held on May
5, 2025.
On May 9, 2025, a letter was sent to Petitioner informing her that the District’s
decision to remand the HIB Investigation to the Anti-Bullying coordinator to review and
analyze the full record to ensure that the District fully reviewed and analyzed the record.
On May 23, 2025, the superintendent of schools sent Petitioner a letter that the
re-investigation would continue without Petitioner’s child’s input, because Petitioner had
refused to allow the District to interview her.
On June 4, 2025, the superintendent schools sent a letter which reassured
Petitioner that the District investigated the concerns raised by both her and her
daughter. The HIB report reflected the information it was formally conveyed to the
school, including through their own communications.
On June 11, 2025, another letter was sent to Petitioner notifying her that the
District 	had 	granted 	her 	second 	request 	for 	hearing 	to 	present 	witnesses 	and
documentation scheduled for June 23, 2025.
On July 3, 2025, the board sent a letter to Petitioner indicating that the District
reaffirmed the HIB determination.
On July 16, 2025, the superintendent of schools sent a letter to Petitioner which
stated that both reported incidents involving the student were fully considered. The
superintendent schools also restated the reasons that the District reaffirmed the HIB

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
4
determination, 	specifically, 	because 	the 	facts 	could 	not 	substantiate 	the 	statutory
elements of the HIB.
The District reconsidered both incidents complained of by the Petitioner.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks review solely of whether the district complied with law, governing
the HIB investigations. The respondent filed a motion for summary decision.
The 	rules 	governing 	motions 	for 	summary 	decision 	in 	an 	OAL 	matter 	are
embodied N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	These provisions mirror the language of Rule 4:46-2 and
the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust
Company 	of 	Westfield, 	17 	N.J. 	67 	(1954). 	Under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b), 	the
determination to grant summary judgment should be based on the papers presented as
well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application. 	In order for the
adverse, i.e., the non-moving party to prevail in such an application, responding
affidavits must be submitted showing that there is indeed a genuine issue of fact, which
can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding. The Court in Brill v. Guardian Life
Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995), set the standard to be
applied when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Therein the Court stated:
The determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a
material fact challenged requires the Motion Judge to consider whether
the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are sufficient to permit a
rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
Here, there are no material issues of fact since petitioner is not contesting the
HIB determination but instead, she contests the legality of the District’s actions.
Petitioner cites no legal authority in support of her appeal. 	In fact, Petitioner is
not challenging the HIB determination but only challenges the legality of the complaint,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
5
which is not before the undersigned. Petitioner did not allege that the District’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, since no HIB was found, no interim measures or remedies are
available to Petitioner. 	I therefore CONCLUDE that there are no remaining issues to
determine in this matter.
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that this matter is no longer a contested
case before the Office of Administrative Law and respondents’ Motion for Dismissal is
ripe for determination.
ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing, 	respondent’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision 	is
GRANTED. It is ORDERED that petition is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
6
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. 	Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies and
Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
February 27, 2026
DATE 	MARIANNE B. ORTEGA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	2/27/26
Date Mailed to Parties:
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18685-25
7
DOCUMENTS RELIED ON
- 	Respondent’s email dated December 12, 2025
- 	Petitioner’s email dated January 7, 2025
- 	Respondent’s email dated January 12, 2025
- 	Petitioner’s reply to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.
- 	Respondent’s Brief in Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,
dated January 12, 2025