D.A. v. Board of Education of the Town of Kearny, Hudson County, 4/7/26 (#124-26)

124-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 12497-25
Agency Dkt. No. 120-4/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Town of Kearny,
Hudson 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 adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter for the reasons stated by the Administrative Law Judge.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: April 7, 2026
Date of Mailing: April 7, 2026
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12497-25
AGENCY REF. NO. 120-4/25
D.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN
OF KEARNY, HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent.
D.A., petitioner, pro se
Kenneth J. Lindenfelser, Esq., for respondent (Law Offices of Kenneth J.
Lindenfelser, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 29, 2026 	Decided: February 3, 2026
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, D.A. filed a report of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) against
another student for an incident that occurred at a school sanctioned event alleging that
another student was verbally abusive to her because of her appearance under the Anti-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12497-25
2
Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (ABBRA). 	Both students were
eighteen at the time of the incident. 	On January 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a letter stating
that she is entering into military service, that her mother, M.A., filed the appeal, and that
M.A. will continue the appeal on her behalf. Must petitioner’s appeal be dismissed? Yes,
a party must have a palpable stake in the outcome of the litigation to have standing to
pursue a case. Stubaus v. Whitman, 339 N.J. Super. 38, 47 (App. Div., 2001).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 27, 2025, an incident occurred between petitioner and another student.
at an off-campus crew practice. 	The other student made comments to petitioner based
on her appearance while standing a couple of inches away from her. Petitioner called the
police and filed a police report against the other student. 	On March 30, 2025, R.A. and
M.A. on behalf of D.A. filed a report of HIB report. 	After a thorough investigation,
respondent determined that the incident did not constitute HIB. 	The Superintendent
reviewed the investigation and agreed with the finding. 	On May 19, 2025, Respondent
held a board hearing. On June 11, 2025, the Board affirmed the investigative findings and
the Superintendent’s decision. On June 12, 2025, D.A. filed an appeal and the case was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing as a contested case
under 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14B-1 	to-15 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14F-1 	to-13. 	On 	July 	10, 	2025,
Respondent filed an Answer. 	On August 11, 2025, I held a prehearing conference.
Petitioner advised she was withdrawing but no formal letter of withdrawal was received.
On August 29, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failing to state a cause of
action, for mootness and for failing to name an indispensable party. On October 6, 2025,
I entered an order denying the respondent’s motion to dismiss.
On October 16, 2025, and entered an order outlining the deadlines for a motion for
summary decision. 	On November 14, 2025, respondent filed their motion for summary
judgment. 	On January 6, 2026, I requested D.A. file her opposition to the motion. 	On
January 6, 2026, D.A. filed an email/cover letter stating that she did not file this appeal,
that the appeal was filed by M.A. on her behalf, that she is entering the military, and that
her parents will be handling the case going forward. 	On January 15, 2026, I held a
conference with the parties. 	D.A. did not appear. M.A. appeared identifying herself as

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12497-25
3
D.A.’s mother, and confirmed that D.A. did not file the appeal, that D.A. entered the military
service, that D.A. cannot be reached while she is in boot camp and that M.A. would be
pursuing this appeal on behalf of D.A. M.A. did not have any legal document appointing
her as an agent for D.A. 	On January 29, 2026, respondent filed a letter requesting the
case be dismissed and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony the parties provided, and my assessment of its
credibility, together with the documents the parties submitted, and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
1. 	On March 27, 2025, D.A. was involved in an alleged HIB incident at a school
sanctioned event. At that time, D.A. was eighteen years old.
2. 	On March 30, 20205, D.A. filed a HIB report with the Principal at Kearny High
School.
3. 	On May 19, 2025, Respondent held a board hearing.
4. 	On June 11, 2025, the Board affirmed the investigative findings and the
Superintendent’s decision.
5. 	On June 12, 2025, an appeal was filed with the Commissioner of Education. On
July 10, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer.
6. 	On January 6, 2026, D.A. sent a letter stating that she did not file this appeal,
that it was filed by M.A. on her behalf, that D.A. is entering the military, and that
M.A. will be handling the case going forward.
7. 	On January 15, 2026, D.A. did not call into the telephone conference.
8. 	M.A. is D.A.’s mother and filed the appeal on behalf of D.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12497-25
4
9. 	D.A. is in boot camp and cannot be reached by any means unless there is an
emergency.
10. M.A. will be pursuing this appeal on behalf of D.A.
11. M.A. does not have any legal document appointing her as D.A.’s agent to pursue
any legal issues on her behalf.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A case or controversy is brought by an interested person who is defined as
someone that is substantially, specifically, and directly affected by the outcome of a case.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.2. Without standing, an individual cannot bring a case. 	Standing is a
central issue in every case. 	Standing is a threshold justiciability determination about
whether a party can bring an action before a court. Stubaus v. Whitman, 339 N.J. Super.
38, 47 (App. Div., 2001). A party must be in a position adverse to other parties, have a
palpable stake in the outcome of the litigation, and be likely to suffer harm in the event of
an unfavorable decision. Ibid. 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)).
D.A. was eighteen years old at the time of the incident. 	D.A. is the only person
who can bring her case against the Commissioner. D.A. has specifically stated that she
did not file the appeal in this case, that she does not intend to further pursue this case,
that she is not available to pursue the case as she is in boot camp and that her mother,
M.A. will be continuing the case in her absence. 	M.A. has not produced any legal
documentation that appoints her as D.A.’s agent. M.A. will not be substantially or directly

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12497-25
5
affected by the outcome of the case because this case involves an allegation of HIB
against D.A. M.A. does not have standing to pursue the case on D.A.’s behalf. Therefore,
I CONCLUDE that the petition of appeal must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the appeal 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.
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 3, 2026
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 3, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	February 3, 2026