In the Matter of the Revocation of the Certificates of Joshua Rosenbaum by the State Board of Examiners. 9/30/21, (#207-21)

1
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS DKT. NO. 1819-237
AGENCY DKT NO. 4-3/21A
IN THE MATTER OF THE :
REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATES : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
OF JOSHUA ROSENBAUM BY THE : DECISION
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS. :
____________________________________
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, July 30, 2020
For the Respondent-Appellant, William P. Hannan, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sadia Ahsanuddin,
Deputy Attorney General (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General of New
Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection
with appellant Joshua Rosenbaum’s appeal of the State Board of Examiners’ Order of
July 30, 2020, revoking his Teacher of Elementary School in Grades K-8 Certificate of
Eligibility and his Teacher of Elementary School in Grades K-8 certificate. The Board found
that the appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct warranting the revocation of his certificates
based on tenure charges filed against him in which it was alleged that the appellant: physically
assaulted students in his class on more than one occasion; failed to properly manage classroom
behavior; was chronically absent; and had poor performance ratings.
On appeal, the appellant maintains that the Order of Revocation entered by the
Board violates his dues process rights because it was made without him receiving adequate
notice of the proposed action against his certificates. Specifically, the appellant argues that the
facts demonstrate that the Board mailed the Order to Show Cause (OTSC) and subsequent
correspondence to an address that he has not resided at nor been associated with in any way for
207-21

2
ten years. The OTSC and all other correspondence from the Board were sent to 82 Richelieu
Place, Newark, New Jersey 07106; the appellant contends that he has not lived at that address
since 2009, and that his current address is 87 Elm Street, Montclair, New Jersey 07042.
Therefore, the appellant did not receive the OTSC that was mailed to the Newark address on
November 7, 2019, nor did he receive the subsequent mailings from the Board that were likewise
sent to the Newark address.
The appellant maintains that once he discovered that the Order of Revocation was
entered against him, he immediately contacted the Board to inform that he had never received
notice of the OTSC and as such never had an opportunity to respond before his certificates were
revoked.1 Therefore, the appellant maintains that the Board’s decision to revoke his
certifications should be reversed and the Commissioner should remand this matter to the Board
to afford him the opportunity to respond to the Order to Show Cause.
In reply, the Board agues that it followed the appropriate procedure for service of
process in administrative actions. The OTSC and all communications were sent to the
appellant’s Newark address via certified mail and regular mail. The regular mail copies were not
returned as undeliverable and the certified mail copies were all “unclaimed.” The Board gave
the appellant an opportunity to contest the allegations in the OTSC, which he failed to do. Thus,
the allegations were appropriately deemed admitted and summary decision was appropriate.
Moreover, the appellant’s claim that he had no notice of the proceedings is unavailing because he
has not provided proof that he actually moved from Newark to Montclair or that he had no
connection to the Newark address. The Board also argues that the appeal is untimely because
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.2 requires an appeal to be filed within 30 days of the Board’s decision. Here,
1 On May 13, 2021, the Board voted to deny the appellant’s request to vacate the Order of Revocation and the
Motion to Stay the Order.

3
the Order of Revocation was mailed to the appellant on August 12, 2020 and his appeal was not
filed until March 5, 2021, well beyond the 30-day limitation period. Therefore, the
Commissioner should affirm the Order of Revocation and dismiss the appeal.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the
Commissioner may not substitute her judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant
received due process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence
in the record. Further, the Board’s decision should not be disturbed unless the appellant
demonstrates that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). After a
comprehensive review of the record and all submissions, the Commissioner finds that the
appellant was not afforded the requisite due process before his certificates were revoked.
There is no dispute that all of the correspondence sent from the Board to the
appellant in this matter, including the OTSC and the Order of Revocation, were mailed to the
Newark address. In reaching the determination that the appellant did not have an adequate notice
of the OTSC, the Commissioner emphasizes that the sworn statement of evidence in support of
the tenure charges filed against the appellant by the East Orange Board of Education in 2018,
upon which the OTSC was based, included exhibits that indicated appellant resided at the
Montclair address. More specifically, the East Orange School District, in both 2013 and 2014,
mailed correspondence regarding his performance and attendance to the appellant at the
Montclair address. In the absence of any indication from the Board as to why the OTSC and
other correspondence were mailed to the Newark address instead of the Montclair address, the
Commissioner is compelled to find that the appellant did not receive adequate due process prior
to having his certificate revoked. The Commissioner is also not persuaded by the Board’s
assertion that the appeal was untimely filed. If the appellant did not receive notice of the OTSC

4
nor the Order of revocation that was mailed to the Newark address, it would follow that he was
not aware of any action against his certificates that would mandate an appeal within 30 days of
the mailing of the Order of Revocation under N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.2.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the State Board of Examiners to give the
appellant an opportunity to respond to the Order to Show Cause.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 In light of the fact that this matter is being remanded to the Board, it is not necessary to decide the Motion to
Supplement the Record that was filed by the appellant.
September 30, 2021
September 30, 2021