C.M., on behalf of minor child, J.M. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Bergenfield, Bergen County, 4/21/25 (#143-25)

143-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11504-24
Agency Dkt. No. 266-8/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.M., on behalf of minor child, J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Bergenfield,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the hearing transcript, 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 (ALJ) that the Board’s
decision to expel J.M. pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The
Commissioner also concurs with the ALJ that the pre-expulsion meeting convened between J.M. and the
evaluating psychiatrist, who had previously assessed the student several times and was familiar with the
student’s disciplinary history, satisfied the intent of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2c and District Policy 5620.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 21, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	April 22, 2025
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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 266-8/24
C.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH
OF BERGENFIELD, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
C.M., petitioner, pro se
Rodney T. Hara, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 10, 2025 	Decided: February 24, 2025
BEFORE R. TALI EPSTEIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, 	C.M., 	on 	behalf 	of 	his 	son, 	J.M., 	appeals 	the 	determination 	by
respondent 	Bergenfield 	Board 	of 	Education 	(the 	“Board”) 	to 	expel 	J.M. 	from 	the
Bergenfield School District (the “District”) for assaulting a fellow student on school
grounds, participating in a group of students that followed another student who then
engaged in a stabbing, and impeding the ensuing criminal investigation by providing a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
2
false name to the Bergenfield Police Department. 	Did 	the Board act arbitrarily,
unreasonably, or capriciously in determining to expel J.M. from the District? No. Under
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.4, the District may expel a student if the student
engages in the physical assault of another student and/or conduct that constitutes a
continuing danger to the physical well-being of other pupils.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Following written notice to J.M.’s parents, on May 13, 2024, the Board conducted
a disciplinary hearing, the purpose of which was to determine whether J.M. should be
subject to further discipline after having been suspended for physically assaulting a
student on April 9, 2024, and for engaging in further misconduct on April 22, 2024, by
participating in a group of students that followed another student with the intention of
provoking a fight, and impeding the ensuing criminal investigation by lying to the police.
On May 20, 2024, five school days after the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, the
Board passed a resolution expelling J.M. from the District. By letter dated May 21, 2024,
the Board issued a written statement of its decision and notified J.M.’s parents of the right
to appeal. 	On August 16, 2024, C.M. filed a pro se petition of appeal on behalf of J.M.
with the Department of Education’s Office of Controversies and Disputes challenging the
decision by the Board to expel J.M. and requesting emergent relief.
On August 19, 2024, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), where it was filed on August 20, 2024, for hearing as a contested case under
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
At a prehearing conference on August 27, 2024, respondent confirmed that the
District would continue to provide J.M. with an interim alternate education program during
the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, petitioner withdrew his application for emergent
relief, and a two-day hearing on the underlying appeal was scheduled. The hearing took
place on November 14 and November 26, 2024. The hearing proceeded as scheduled.
C.M., 	J.M., 	and 	Anne 	Monahan, 	C.M.’s 	fiancée, 	testified 	on 	behalf 	of 	petitioner.
Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Christopher Tully, Superintendent of Schools
(“Superintendent Tully”), Matthew McGrath, Acting Director of the Alternative School

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
3
(“McGrath”), Robert Ragasa, Assistant Principal of the Alternative School (“Ragasa”) and
Dr. Morton Fridman (“Dr. Fridman”), the Board-certified child, adolescent, and adult
psychiatrist who examined J.M. on behalf of the District. 	At the conclusion of the
testimonial portion 	of the proceedings, 	the 	parties 	agreed to submit post-hearing
submissions on or by January 10, 2025. Upon receipt and the parties’ exchange of same
on January 10, 2025, 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:
J.M. is sixteen years old. In April 2024, J.M. was a tenth-grade student enrolled in
the District. 	For the 2023–2024 year, J.M. was placed at the Bergenfield Alternative
School (the “Alternative School”), as a result of prior disciplinary actions taken against
him.
Specifically, J.M. was suspended on December 10, 2021, for making “terroristic
threats against the Roy Brown Middle School community” while he was a student at the
middle school (the “2021 suspension”). 	(R-1.) 	In a group chat, J.M. referred to a
“Bergenfield shooting” and his intention to “kill as many people as possible,” shoot
students at the school, blow up the doors upon attempted escape, and possibly kill
himself. J.M. named specific students as intended targets of the shooting.
Following a hearing on December 20, 2021, the Board resolved to continue J.M.’s
2021 suspension on a monthly basis through the 2021–2022 school year.1 	During this
long-term suspension, J.M. was provided with home instruction. For the following school
year (2022–2023), J.M. was permitted to return to a classroom environment, and was
placed at the Alternative School.
1 As part of the disciplinary proceedings, J.M.’s parents also signed an acknowledgment that “if [J.M.]
engages in further conduct warranting expulsion,” his conduct would “constitute a knowing and voluntary
waiver of his right to a free and public education” if the Board decided to expel him. (R-2.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
4
Only two months after returning to a classroom setting, on October 24, 2022, J.M.
was again subject to disciplinary action for making terroristic threats. 	This time, the
alleged threats concerned violence against J.M.’s female math teacher. In an email that
J.M. titled, “I HATE MY MATH TEACHER, MANNNNNN” and sent to another teacher,
J.M. attached a link to a 2013 article reporting on the killing of a female math teacher by
a fourteen-year-old male high school student who slashed her throat in a school
bathroom. 	(R-3, Ex. L.) 	As a result, J.M. was charged with various violations of Board
policies, including District Policy 5520 (“Expulsion”) and N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 (“Causes for
Suspension or Expulsion of Pupils”). (R-3.)
Notice of a disciplinary proceeding before the Board was provided to J.M.’s
parents, and petitioner retained a lawyer to represent J.M.’s interests. 	A settlement
among the parties was reached prior to the scheduled Board expulsion hearing.2 	As
relevant here, the settlement agreement provided that J.M.’s suspension would continue
to “at least the end of the 2022–2023 school year,” and the Board agreed not to initiate
expulsion proceedings, provided that J.M. complied with the terms of the settlement
agreement. 	Among those terms was the requirement that J.M. submit to psychiatric
examination by the psychiatrist designated by the Board at scheduled intervals. 	(R-4,
¶¶ 2, 5.)
Dr. Fridman, the Board-designated psychiatrist engaged by the District, first
examined J.M. on or about February 9, 2023. Dr. Fridman concluded that J.M. suffered
from “emotional difficulties, impulsivity and lack of social skills” that were likely to continue
in the absence of effective treatment. (R-12.)
Dr. Fridman next examined J.M. on or about June 20, 2023. Dr. Fridman reported
that J.M. was being seen by a private therapist and engaged in group therapy while his
home suspension continued. Dr. Fridman noted that J.M. seemed motivated to return to
school, but Dr. Fridman reserved further recommendation pending receipt of information
from J.M.’s individual and group therapist. (R-13.)
2 J.M. and C.M. also signed another acknowledgment that “if [J.M.] engages in further conduct warranting
expulsion,” his conduct would ”constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a free public
education” if the Board decided to expel him. (R-4.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
5
On or about July 19, 2023, Dr. Fridman issued a follow-up report, which, among
other things, included his professional recommendation that J.M. had not sufficiently
progressed and that a mainstream school environment (i.e., Bergenfield High School)
was not appropriate for J.M. Dr. Fridman suggested that the Alternative School—J.M.’s
placement 	prior 	to 	his 	most 	recent 	long-term 	suspension—should 	be 	considered.
Accordingly, the Board passed a resolution continuing J.M.’s suspension on a monthly
basis and J.M. began the 2023–2024 school year at the Alternative School, where he
received alternate instruction during his continued suspension. 	(R-6.) 	In or about Fall
2023, J.M. was evaluated by a Child Study Team and was determined not to be eligible
for services.
On January 10, 2024, Dr. Fridman examined J.M. again and was asked by the
school to opine whether it would be “okay” for J.M. to participate in after-school athletics
at Bergenfield High School. 	Dr. Fridman testified that he was told by the school that
“they’d love to be able to give [J.M.] a chance to participate in athletics . . . [a]nd they
wanted to know if I thought it was okay.” 	(Hr’g Tr. 2,3 129:13-17.) 	Dr. Fridman
recommended that J.M. continue receiving psychotherapy and noted that while “the
Alternative School appears to be an appropriate placement for [J.M.] at this time,” in his
professional opinion, “it would be reasonable to give [J.M.] the opportunity to participate
in athletics at Bergenfield High School.” (R- 14.) Dr. Fridman, however, made clear that
his recommendation was made contingent upon J.M.’s continued progress.
After 	reviewing 	Dr. 	Fridman’s 	recommendation, 	Superintendent 	Tully
recommended that the Board agree to allow J.M. to participate in Winter Track at
Bergenfield High School while his suspension continued. 	The Board agreed, and J.M.
was scheduled to attend his first track meeting after school on April 9, 2024.
But J.M. never took advantage of that rehabilitation opportunity offered by the
District. 	Instead, on the same day that he was supposed to participate in after-school
athletics at Bergenfield High School, J.M. physically assaulted another student at the
3 References to Hr’g Tr. 1 and Hr’g Tr. 2 are to the transcripts of the proceedings from the first day of the
hearing on November 14, 2024 and the second day of the hearing on November 26, 2024, respectively.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
6
Alternative School. 	The violent incident, which occurred in the school hallway, was
captured by video footage. (J-1.) The video clearly depicts J.M. waiting for his intended
victim to emerge from the bathroom and immediately pummeling the stunned student as
he exits through the bathroom door into the hallway. J.M. admits to punching the student
several times in his head. 	There is also no dispute that the assault was premeditated;
the victim was caught by surprise and did not fight back but ran away to avoid further
assault.
As an immediate consequence of his assault on another student, J.M. was
suspended from attending class at the Alternative School. 	For “fighting/assault,” the
“Basic Progressive Disciplinary Guidelines” contained in the District’s Code of Conduct
provided for a five-to-ten-day home suspension and “possible Bd. of Ed. review for
expulsion hearing.” (R-9, Ex. E.) Following a ten-day suspension, five days of which J.M.
served at the Suspension Alternative Program in Hackensack (in lieu of a home
suspension), J.M. returned to the Alternative School on April 22, 2024.
On April 22, 2024, Superintendent Tully was also at the Alternative School to meet
with then-Principal Fasano. 	The purpose of Superintendent Tully’s discussion with
Fasano was to evaluate whether the April 9 th assault warranted further discipline against
J.M. beyond the ten-day suspension and whether a Board hearing to consider additional
disciplinary 	action, 	including 	expulsion, 	was 	appropriate 	at 	that 	time. 	While
Superintendent 	Tully 	was 	engaged 	in 	that 	evaluation, 	he 	received 	notice 	of 	a
contemporaneous incident in which a District student was stabbed outside the Roy W.
Brown Middle School, on Clinton Avenue in Bergenfield, shortly after dismissal. Among
other students, J.M. was detained for questioning by the Bergenfield Police Department
in connection with the incident, and he was again suspended from attending the
Alternative School.
The 	District 	promptly 	conducted 	its 	own 	investigation, 	which 	considered
information provided by the police, witness interviews and statements, and the review of
video footage of the incident from various vantage points. J.M. was included among the
witnesses who were interviewed and provided statements. 	As a result of the District’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
7
investigation, the following facts were determined regarding J.M.’s involvement in the
April 22, 2024 incident:
Shortly after dismissal, on his first day back at the Alternative School following his
suspension for the April 9 th assault, J.M. was part of a large group of students that was
harassing a small group of students and trying to provoke a fight. (R-11.) J.M. and other
students in the large group were wearing hoods and masks to conceal their identity. The
larger group, including J.M., followed the smaller group as they headed down the street.
A verbal altercation between participants in the larger and smaller groups escalated, and
it ended when a student in the smaller group used a knife to stab the leg of a student in
the larger group, in what was determined by the District as “an attempt to defend himself.”
(R-11.) 	Immediately after the stabbing, as captured by the video footage, J.M. is seen
running from the scene in the opposite direction. (J-2.) At no time, prior to the stabbing,
did J.M. call for help. Nor did he walk away. Rather, the video footage shows that J.M.,
while on the periphery of the larger group, followed along with the group as they continued
down the street while harassing the smaller group of students, until the stabbing ensued.
(Ibid.) When he was stopped by the Bergenfield Police Department and questioned, J.M.
provided the authorities with a false name. In lying to the police, J.M. impeded the police
investigation.
On or about April 23, 2024, Superintendent Tully issued an incident report
recounting the foregoing facts. (R-9, Ex. L.) In J.M.’s statement regarding the incident,
he claimed that he was in the area because he “went to go buy food” and was “walking
back home” when the police told him “not to leave” because they had to question him.
(Ibid., Ex. N.) 	At the hearing before this tribunal, however, J.M. acknowledged that he
“got [his] food” and, after that, he “ran into the whole crowd [i.e., the larger group],” and
“that’s when I stayed.” (Hr’g Tr. 1, 114:3–9.) But J.M. did more than “stay” to watch “what
was going to happen.” 	(Ibid., 115:11–14.) 	As reflected in the video footage, J.M. also
followed along with the larger group as they headed down the street after the smaller
group. 	(J-2.) 	On cross-examination, J.M. also admitted that he lied to the police. 	He
expressed no remorse about concealing the truth about his identity from the police. 	In
J.M.’s words, “everyone lies,” and “I lie when I want to.” 	(Hr’g Tr. 1, 117:5–14.) 	By his
own admission, J.M. was not trustworthy. Indeed, prior to the April 22, 2024 incident, Dr.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
8
Fridman noted in his January 10, 2024 psychiatric evaluation of J.M. that J.M. has a
penchant for “stretching the truth to gain favor, despite them [sic] being clearly fabricated.”
(R-14.) In contrast to J.M., I found respondent’s witnesses to be candid and the basis for
their determinations regarding J.M’s involvement in the April 22, 2024 incident sufficiently
supported by the evidence gathered during the District’s investigation.
After the incident, J.M. was referred by the District for a psychiatric examination
with Dr. Fridman, which took place on May 3, 2024.
District Policy 5620 regarding expulsion requires that the principal convene a
meeting between a student who is subject to a proposed expulsion and a “school
psychologist, 	a 	school 	counselor, 	a 	school 	social 	worker, 	a 	student 	assistance
coordinator, or a member of the school’s intervention and referral services team.” 	(R-9,
Ex. D.) 	The stated “purpose of the meeting” is to “identify any behavior or health
difficulties experienced by the student and, where appropriate, to provide supportive
interventions or referrals to school or community resources that may assist the student in
addressing the identified difficulties.” (Ibid.) Because Dr. Fridman was more familiar with
J.M.’s health and behavioral difficulties than any staff members designated in District
Policy 5620, it was determined that the purpose of the District Policy was best met by
convening a meeting between J.M. and Dr. Fridman. (Hr’g Tr. 2, 101:12–18.)
As contemplated by District Policy 5620, following his examination of J.M., which
considered J.M.’s prior psychiatric evaluations, Dr. Fridman issued a report that identified
J.M.’s current and continuing behavioral difficulties and recommended the continuation
of J.M.’s weekly psychotherapy and involvement with the Youth Resource Center.
(R-10.) 	Dr. Fridman further concluded, in his professional opinion, that: 	“Given [J.M.]’s
continuing violent behaviors and antisocial difficulties, it is clear that [J.M.] cannot function
effectively in school with other students at this time.” (Ibid.)
Following his review and acceptance of Dr. Fridman’s May 3, 2024 psychiatric
evaluation report, and after further consultation with then-Principal Fasano regarding
J.M.’s most recent misconduct on April 9 and April 22, 2024, Superintendent Tully made
the decision to present a recommendation to the Board that J.M. be expelled from school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
9
Superintendent Tully testified that his decision “was not made lightly.” (Hr’g Tr. 2, 69:6–
7.) 	J.M. had a history of serious, unreformed misconduct that began with terroristic
threats and had escalated to the physical assault of another student on school grounds.4
Considered with the other misconduct that occurred on the very same day that J.M.
returned from the assault suspension, Superintendent Tully had “no confidence” that if
J.M. were allowed to return to any District school that Superintendent Tully could continue
“to ensure the safety and well-being of the students and the staff members.” 	(Ibid.,
109:23–110:1.) 	In 	short, 	Superintendent 	Tully 	concluded 	that 	J.M.’s 	continued
misconduct was a “substantial disruption to our abilities [] to provide appropriate discipline
for the safe operation of our school,” he recommended expulsion as a disciplinary action
of last resort. (Ibid., 61:15–17.)
By letter dated May 8, 2024 (the “May 8 Letter”), addressed to J.M.’s parents,
Superintendent Tully advised that the Board had scheduled a disciplinary hearing to take
place on May 13, 2024, the purpose of which was to determine whether J.M. should be
subject to further discipline in connection with the April 9 and April 22, 2024 incidents.
The May 8 Letter detailed the facts leading to J.M.’s suspension as: (1) the April 9, 2024
assault; (2) J.M.’s participation on April 22, 2024, in a larger group of students that
followed another student with the intention of provoking a fight, and, relatedly, (3) J.M.’s
falsification of his identity, which impeded a criminal investigation. Regarding (1) and (2),
the May 8 Letter advised that the charged conduct “constitutes a continuing danger to the
safety and physical well-being of other pupils and substantially disrupted and interfered
with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” (R-9.)
The May 8 Letter also notified J.M.’s parents that Superintendent Tully would be
recommending that the Board expel J.M. from the District public schools. (Ibid.) It further
listed the statutory, school handbook, and District Policy provisions that J.M. allegedly
violated and the evidentiary support, including witnesses, to be presented at the hearing
in support of the disciplinary charges.
4 Since the time this appeal was filed, Superintendent Tully testified that J.M. was involved in several other
disciplinary matters, including an incident on school grounds in violation of the terms of his suspension and
a substantiated HIB. (Hr.’g Tr. 2, 69:14–71:18.) While not the subject of this appeal, these incidents further
support Superintendent Tully’s determination that J.M.’s misconduct will continue if allowed to return to a
District school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
10
The Board hearing took place on May 13, 2024, as scheduled. After hearing from
witnesses, including a presentation made by C.M. on J.M.’s behalf, reviewing the video
footage of the incidents and documentary evidence,5 the Board determined that the
record fully supported the conclusion that J.M. engaged in the charged conduct and in
violation of the student code of conduct, as set forth in the Bergenfield High School
Student/Parent Handbook and District Policies and Regulations 5500 (Expectations for
Pupil Conduct), 5600 (Student Discipline/Code of Conduct), 5610 (Suspension) and 5620
(Expulsion). 	The Board further concluded that J.M.’s conduct, including the physical
assault of another pupil, constituted “a continuing danger to the physical well being [sic]
of other pupils.” 	(R-11.) 	As a result, and after consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board further “determined that [J.M.] should be expelled from the
[District].” (Ibid.)
On August 16, 2024, C.M. timely filed a pro se petition on behalf of his son
appealing the Board’s decision. 	Pending a final decision on the appeal, the District is
providing J.M. with an alternative education program at the Suspension Alternative
Program in Hackensack, New Jersey.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision to expel J.M. pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:37-2 for violations of the above-referenced District Policies and Regulations and
student code of conduct, as set forth in the Bergenfield High School Student/Parent
Handbook.
It is well recognized that school districts have the authority to suspend and expel
students. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2. Further, school board actions are entitled to a presumption
of correctness. They will not be upset by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) nor by the
Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) unless petitioner, who carries the
5 The documentary evidence presented by the District included J.M.’s school behavior and discipline record
(which cited prior disciplinary infractions in addition to those detailed above) (R-9, Exs. O and Q), Dr.
Fridman’s psychiatric evaluation reports, Superintendent Tully’s incident report, and witness statements
from the April 9 and April 22 incidents, including J.M.’s statements.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
11
burden of proof, shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions taken were
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See, e.g., J.D. and E.D. o/b/o B.D. v. Bd. of Educ.
of Toms River Reg’l Sch. Dist., EDU 6009-97, Initial Decision (Dec. 29, 1997), adopted,
Comm'r 	(July 	8, 	1998), 	https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu6009-
97.html (recognizing that student discipline is a discretionary power of the school board,
and board decision regarding the appropriate penalty for a disciplinary infraction should
not be disturbed, absent evidence that the board’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable).
Even if the ALJ or the Commissioner may have come to a different conclusion, it
is decidedly not their function to substitute their judgment for that of the board members
on matters which are by statute delegated to local boards. See, e.g., J.D. and E.D. obo
B.D. v. Bd. of Educ. of Toms River Reg’l Sch. Dist., Ocean Cnty., 1997 N.J. AGEN LEXIS
521 (Dec. 29, 1997) (collecting cases that cite this applicable and “circumscribed” scope
of review when assessing the propriety of a student expulsion).
Stated otherwise, when a local board of education acts within its discretionary
authority, its decision will not be disturbed unless it is demonstrated that the decision was
“patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. W.
Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	Thus, to successfully
challenge a determination made by a board of education, a party must demonstrate that
the Board acted in “either bad faith or disregard to the circumstances.” 	T.B.M. v.
Moorestown 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	2780-07, 	Initial 	Decision 	(Feb. 	6, 	2008),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu02780-07_1.html.
Applying this standard does not leave discretion to this tribunal to decide whether
it would have reached the same outcome concerning the severity of the discipline
imposed. 	Rather, the Board must first be found, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, 	to 	have 	acted 	arbitrarily, 	capriciously, 	or 	unreasonably 	for 	reversal 	or
modification to occur. This high threshold is undeniably difficult to meet. See, e.g., K.L.
v. Bd. of Educ. of Matawan/Aberdeen High Sch. Dist., 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 74 (where
student with prior disciplinary record resorted to physical aggression, expulsion was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
12
“neither unreasonable, arbitrary nor capricious,” notwithstanding that student’s conduct
was provoked by his teacher).
Here, there is ample, credible evidence that J.M. engaged in the conduct that
constituted the basis of the Board’s determination that he be expelled from the District.
First, there is no dispute that J.M. physically assaulted another student in a
premeditated attack that occurred in a school hallway at the Alternative School on April 9,
2024. The violent incident was captured on video and witnessed by students and staff,
and J.M. admits that he was the attacker. While petitioner notes that the victim previously
sent J.M. provocative texts, petitioner also concedes that it “doesn’t justify the actions that
my son did. He shouldn’t have done it.” (Hr’g Tr. 1, 30:6–11.) Petitioner acknowledges
that J.M. had other avenues to pursue a remedy outside of physical force but J.M. chose
to pursue violence. (Ibid.)
There is also no question that under District Policy 5600 “[p]hysical assault upon
another student” constitutes “good cause” for expulsion or that the Student Code of
Conduct provides that a consequence for a student who engages in fighting/assault—
even for a first offense—is Board review for possible expulsion. (R-9, Exs. B & E.)
Regarding J.M.’s involvement in the April 22, 2024 incident, there was sufficient
evidence presented to the Board for it to reach a reasonable conclusion that J.M. was not
a passive or innocent bystander to the incident that led to another student being stabbed.
To be clear, J.M. was not charged as a participant to the stabbing. Nor was he expelled
for “observing a fight while wearing a hoodie,” as petitioner claims. 	(Petitioner’s Post-
Hearing Br. at p. 4.) 	Rather, after viewing video footage of the event, statements from
witnesses, 	including 	J.M., 	and 	hearing 	from 	Superintendent 	Tully 	regarding 	his
conclusions following the District’s investigation and communications with the Bergenfield
Police, the Board concluded that the credible evidence supported a preponderated finding
that J.M. “participated in a group of students, while wearing a hood and mask, that
followed another student with the intention of provoking a fight.” (R-11.) That the Board
did not accept J.M.’s account or C.M.’s presentation that J.M. was only in the area to buy
food and was not involved in the incident in any way, does not make the Board’s finding,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
13
and its resultant decision to expel J.M., arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. It was not
unreasonable for the Board to discredit J.M.’s claim after viewing the video footage of
J.M. following along with the larger group, albeit on the periphery, while they walked down
the street shouting at and harassing the smaller group of students and then watching J.M.
run away from the scene in the opposite direction immediately after the stabbing occurred.
It was also not unreasonable for the Board to question J.M.’s credibility after he lied to the
police about his identity. Indeed, at the hearing before this tribunal, J.M. admitted, without
any compunction: “I lie when I want to.” (Hr’g Tr. 1, 117:14.)
Having reasonably determined, based on the credible evidence, that J.M. engaged
in the charged misconduct, which violated the Student Code of Conduct and various
Board Policies and Regulations, the Board’s determination that expulsion was the
appropriate disciplinary consequence was also reasonable. In reaching this decision, the
Board properly considered J.M.’s prior disciplinary record, in addition to the April 9 and
April 22, 2024 incidents. 	See, e.g., D.J. v. Morris Bd. of Educ., EDU 16026-14, Initial
Decision (June 23, 2015), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu16026-
14_1.html (Board’s consideration of student’s prior disciplinary record was appropriate in
determining severity of penalty); K.O.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Edison Twp., Middlesex Cnty.,
1995 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1313, *10 (same).
That 	J.M.’s 	misconduct 	had 	continued, 	notwithstanding 	prior 	opportunities
extended to him by the District to reform his behavior, was patently relevant to the Board’s
determination.6 Contrary to petitioner’s argument, it was also entirely reasonable for the
Board to weigh the severity of J.M.’s prior terroristic threats and the fact that lesser
penalties apparently had served no rehabilitative or deterrent effect. 	Indeed, when
reviewing an expulsion decision, the Commissioner considers whether “less draconian
courses of action were considered and found to be inappropriate.” M.G. and M.G. o/b/o
A.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Washington Twp., 2001 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1220 (Aug. 6, 2001)
6 See also prior acknowledgments by petitioner and J.M. that any further misconduct by J.M. could lead to
J.M.’s expulsion. (R-2, R-4.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
14
(finding that Board need not consider alternative education options for a non-classified
student over the age of sixteen before ordering expulsion).
Under the circumstances, petitioner’s claim that placement in an out-of-district
and/or private school, not expulsion, was the appropriate result is unavailing. (Petitioner’s
Post-Hearing Br. at p. 4.) 	Contrary to petitioner’s belief, the District does not have an
obligation to pay for a school to accept J.M. (a non-classified student) when his
disciplinary record contains multiple long-term suspensions, and his behavior was
determined to compromise the safety and well-being of other students and substantially
disrupt and interfere with appropriate discipline in the operation of a school.
Petitioner also provides no legal basis for reversal of the Board’s determination
based on his allegation that the District did not follow District Policy 5620 because Dr.
Fridman conducted the pre-expulsion meeting with J.M. in lieu of a less informed school
staff member. 	(Petitioner’s Post-Hearing Br. at p. 2.) 	It is indisputable that the May 3,
2024 evaluation report prepared by Dr. Fridman following his meeting with J.M. satisfied
the stated purpose of District Policy 5620. See supra, Findings of Fact, at 8.
Upon review of the record, I CONCLUDE that (1) the Board’s decision was amply
supported by competent evidence to support its factual findings and imposition of
discipline; and (2) J.M. was afforded the requisite due process in connection with the
Board’s determination to expel him.7 	Petitioner’s claim that due process was denied
because he was not allowed to present the Board with the texts that “incited” J.M.’s violent
attack of another student on April 9, 2024, is rejected. 	(Petitioner’s Post-Hearing Br. at
p. 2.) 	Petitioner admitted at the hearing before this tribunal that the texts provided no
justification for J.M.’s assault of another student. Further, the Board was presented with
J.M.’s statement that his premeditated attack was “in retaliation for threatening text
messages” and concluded that “[t]here was no justification” for the assault. (R-11.) Also
7 There is no dispute that J.M. had engaged a second time in conduct warranting possible suspension or
expulsion, after having first served a duly imposed long-term suspension for an earlier infraction. It is also
undisputed that J.M. and his parents were provided prior notice that J.M. may be expelled after his long-
term suspension and there was no other legal impediment to the Board instituting procedures to expel J.M.
Cf. M.R. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Hoboken Charter Sch., Hudson Cnty., 2010 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 213 (Mar. 22,
2010).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
15
unavailing is petitioner’s complaint that he was not allowed to present “the letter from the
Detective that stated that [J.M.] was not involved in the stabbing.” 	(Petitioner’s Post-
Hearing Br. at p. 2.) As stated above, J.M. was not charged as an assailant in the stabbing
that occurred April 22, 2024. 	Indeed, there is no dispute that J.M. did not commit the
stabbing or that he was directly involved in the fight that led to the stabbing. Rather, the
Board found, by a preponderance of the credible evidence that J.M. was present and
complicit with the large group of students “that followed another student with the intention
of provoking a fight.” (R-11.)
Put simply, petitioner was unable to meet his burden of demonstrating that the
Board action in this matter should be reversed because it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. 	Consequently, it is not the province of this tribunal to determine whether it
agrees with the Board or would have decided the matter differently. 	Accordingly, I
CONCLUDE that the Board determination to expel J.M. was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the action of the
Board is AFFIRMED and petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting 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 11504-24
16
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
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 24, 2025
DATE 	R. TALI EPSTEIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 24, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	February 24, 2025
cc

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
17
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
J.M.
C.M.
Anne Monahan
For Respondent:
Dr. Christopher Tully
Dr. Morton Fridman
Matthew McGrath
Robert Ragasa
EXHIBITS
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 	Video of April 9, 2024 Incident
J-2 	Videos of April 22, 2024 Incident
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Exhibits attached to Pro-Se Petition (with handwritten notes redacted)
For Respondent:
R-1 	Letter to Parents, dated 12/23/2021 and Disciplinary Decision by the
Board and Resolution, dated 12/21/2021
R-2 	Acknowledgements Signed by Parents, dated 12/16/21 and 12/20/21
R-3 	Letter to Parents, Notification of Disciplinary Hearing and Exhibits, dated
12/7/22
R-4 	Agreement between Parent, J.M. and Respondent, dated 12/19/2022
R-5 	Dr. Morton Fridman Psychiatric Evaluation of J.M., dated 7/19/23

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11504-24
18
R-6 	Resolution Continuing Suspension of J.M., dated 8/28/23
R-7 	Incident Report, dated 4/9/24
R-8 	Incident Report, dated 4/22/24
R-9 	Letter to Parents, Notification of Disciplinary Hearing and Exhibits, dated
5/8/24
R-10 	Dr. Morton Fridman Psychiatric Evaluation of J.M., dated 5/3/24
R-11 	Letter to Parents, Disciplinary Decision by the Board to Expel J.M., dated
5/21/24
R-12 	Dr. Morton Fridman Psychiatric Evaluation of J.M., dated 2/9/23
R-13 	Dr. Morton Fridman Psychiatric Evaluation of J.M., dated 6/20/23
R-14 	Dr. Morton Fridman Psychiatric Evaluation of J.M., dated 1/10/24