Kenneth Simmons and Corey Teague v. Paterson Board of Education, Passaic County, and Dr. Laurie Newell, Superintendent, 4/28/26 (#148-26E)

148-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05159-26
Agency Dkt. No. 116-03-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
Kenneth Simmons and Corey Teague,
Petitioners,
v.
Paterson Board of Education, Passaic County, and
Dr. Laurie Newell, Superintendent,
Respondents.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioners have failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioners’ application for emergent relief is
adopted. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 28, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 29, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
AGENCY DKT NO. 116-03-26
KENNETH SIMMONS AND
COREY TEAGUE,
Petitioners,
v.
PATERSON BOARD OF EDUCATION,
PASSAIC COUNTY, AND DR. LAURIE
NEWELL, SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondents.
Kenneth Simmons, petitioner, pro se
Corey Teague, petitioner, pro se
Ramon E. Rivera, Esq., for respondent (Antonelli Kantor Rivera PC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 6, 2026 	Decided: April 7, 2025
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners 	Kenneth 	Simmons 	and 	Corey 	Teague 	seek 	an 	emergent 	order
enjoining the Paterson Board of Education and Superintendent Dr. Laurie Newell (the
Board and, collectively, respondents) from discontinuing the choice programs operating
at Alexander Hamilton Academy, Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir, and Young
Men’s Leadership Academy because they have failed to obtain the proper approvals in
violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5. 	Are petitioners entitled to emergency relief? 	No.
Petitioners must prevail on all four prongs of N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 to obtain emergent relief.
Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 31, 2025, petitioner filed a request for emergent relief to prevent the
Paterson Board of Education (respondents) from closing four choice schools within the
Paterson Public School District (the District) with 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 April 6, 2026, respondents submitted a certification of Dr. Laurie Newell and
a certification of Cheryl Williams. On April 6, 2026, I held a hearing, and, on that date, 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:
Kenneth Simmons is a member of the Board and resides in Paterson. 	Corey
Teague is a member of the Board and resides in Paterson.
On September 12, 2007, the Board prepared and approved a Long-Range
Facilities Plan (LRFP). 	The Board engaged in a public planning process that included
presentations, opportunities for public comment, and community input. 	The LRFP was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
3
submitted and approved by the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). The LRFP
guides the strategic reconfiguration and repurposing of school buildings to improve
operational sustainability, efficiency, and equity. 	The LRFP outlined that there was
sufficient capacity with the configuration and that there would not be a facilities shortage
or reliance on temporary facilities.
On August 19, 2015, the Board approved the submission of an amendment to the
LRFP, which included the discontinuation of the Choice Programs that are operated by
the District at the Alexander Hamilton Academy, Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir,
and Young Men’s Leadership Academy. 	The LRFP outlined the discontinuation of the
choice programs, the new school model, and that the facilities housing the programs will
be repurposed for other educational or operational uses under a facilities plan. 	The
facilities plan will be developed by the administration, presented to and approved by the
Board.
On May 2, 2016, the DOE approved the amendment to the LRFP, which would be
implemented between 2015 and 2020.
On June 17, 2020, the Board approved DMR Architects to perform a demographic
analysis and redistricting plan for the students in the attendance zone for the new middle
school.
On December 16, 2020, the new redistricting plan was presented to the Board,
and on July 19, 2021, the Board approved these submissions to the DOE for approval.
On August 25, 2021, the DOE approved the Board’s amendments to the LRFP.
On April 6, 2022, the redistricting recommendations were included in the Strategic Plan
Update and were presented to the Board. 	The redistricting measures included the
development of a new middle school, which would result in a realignment of grade levels
in the adjoining school zones. 	This would include Alexander Hamilton Academy,
Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir, and Young Men’s Leadership Academy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
4
On January 23, 2026, the District notified the parents of students registered at
Alexander Hamilton Academy, Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir, and Young Men’s
Leadership Academy that their students will return to their assigned neighborhood
schools for the 2026−2027 school year under the LRFP. 	These students will be
reassigned to their designated neighborhood schools effective September 1, 2026.
The Board approved Phases 0, 1, and 2 of the LRFP. 	On April 1, 2026, the Board
approved the school reconfigurations, student reassignments, program discontinuations,
and facility repurposing. (Cert. of Williams, Ex. A). The resolution approved Phase 3 of
the LRFP and reorganization of the District’s schools and considered the reassignment
of the students. The resolution affirmed that the Board considered student transportation,
travel time, safety, and access to programming. 	The resolution also affirmed that the
Board considered the effects of staffing adjustments and the educational and operational
objectives and determined that the reconfiguration is rationally related to legitimate
educational and operational objectives.
The resolution also affirmed that the Board determined that the reconfiguration
expanded the bilingual education programs to serve the multilingual student population
and 	that 	the 	reassignment 	would 	not 	produce, 	sustain 	or 	contribute 	to 	unlawful
segregation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Emergent relief may be granted “where authorized by law and where irreparable
harm will result without an expedited decision granting or providing some action or relief
connected with a contested case. . .” 	N.J.A.C. § 1:1-12.6(a). 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b)
codifies the standard for injunctive relief set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982),
which states that (i) the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not
granted; (ii) the legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled; (iii) the petitioner
has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claim; and (iv) when the
equities and interests of the parties are balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm
than the respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted. 	See also Crowe v.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
5
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). 	The applicant shoulders the burden of satisfying all four
prongs of this test by clear and convincing evidence. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132–34.
Irreparable Harm
Irreparable harm has been defined as harm that cannot be redressed by monetary
damages. 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132−33. 	The petitioner must make a “clear showing of
immediate irreparable injury” or a “presently existing actual threat.” 	Cont’l. Grp., Inc. v.
Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F. 2d 351, 359 (D.N.J. 1980).
Petitioners argue that they will suffer irreparable harm because the closure of the
schools 	will 	force 	the 	students 	of 	these 	higher-performing 	choice 	schools 	into
demonstrably 	lower-performing 	schools 	in 	the 	district, 	which 	will 	cause 	academic
disruption. 	Respondent argues that there is no immediate injury because there is no
school closure, that the Board is reconfiguring schools, reassigning schools, and
repurposing facilities under an LRFP, which was presented to and approved by the Board.
Petitioners have failed to identify any harm that they will suffer if their motion is
denied. 	For example, petitioners allege that children will suffer irreversible academic
disruption but have failed to provide any proof of such academic disruption. In fact, they
have not shown that any of the children who will be enrolled in other schools within the
district will suffer any harm. 	Petitioners have not presented any evidence to show that
the other schools in the District will not provide the same or substantially similar education.
Petitioners have alleged that the parents of the students in the District have
stripped the parents of education choice. 	Respondents state that the students will be
enrolled in the District based on geographical location, which is the standard in every
District. 	Petitioners have also alleged that there was a lack of meaningful community
engagement and destruction of established school communities. Respondents argue that
the LRFP was presented at open public meetings, properly noticed, and formally voted
on and approved by the Board. Respondents have provided the resolutions approved by
the Board which contradicts the petitioners’ claims that the Board members and the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
6
community had no input in the reconfiguring and redistricting measures that were
implemented
I CONCLUDE that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any
harm, let alone irreparable harm, if emergent relief is not granted because no evidence
was presented to support such claims.
The Legal Right is Settled and the Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
The second consideration is whether the legal right underlying the petitioners'
claim is settled, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b)(2), and then third, the petitioners must make a
preliminary showing of a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Crowe, 90 N.J.
at 133.
The petitioners allege that the respondents violated the New Jersey regulations by
failing to comply with N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5 and have usurped the authority of the Board and
misapplied the LRFP.
Petitioners argue that under N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5, the District must submit a closure
application to the DOE, a recommendation by the Executive County Superintendent, an
approval from the Division of School Facilities, and a demonstration of capacity, feasibility,
and a non-segregative impact study. Respondents agree on the steps required to close
a school. Respondents argue, however, that the District is not closing any schools under
N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5. 	Rather, the District is discontinuing programs that are operated by
the District at the Alexander Hamilton Academy, Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir,
and Young Men’s Leadership Academy and repurposing the buildings where the
programs were held. The entire process of discontinuing the programs and repurposing
of the buildings was detailed in the LRFP, presented to the Board, approved by the Board,
presented to the DOE, and approved by the DOE. 	The petitioners did not present any
evidence to show that the respondents usurped the Board’s authority or that the Board is
closing schools. 	The respondents argue that it is a reconfiguration of the schools, a
discontinuation of the choice program, and a reassignment of students to other schools
within the district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
7
For the above reasons, I CONCLUDE that the petitioners do meet the second and
third prongs of the emergent relief standard.
Balance of Equities and Interests
The final prong of the above test is whether the equities and interests of the parties
weigh in favor of granting the requested relief to the petitioners. Petitioners state that the
harm to the students is greater than the harm caused by delaying the closure of the
schools at the Alexander Hamilton Academy, Renaissance School 1, Norman S. Weir,
and Young Men’s Leadership Academy. 	The petitioners argue that the students are in
limbo for future school registrations. 	Respondents argue that the students can and will
be enrolled in neighborhood schools without any delay or interruption in education that
they are obligated to provide, the reconfiguration supports the strategic expansion of
bilingual 	education 	to 	better 	serve 	the 	multilingual 	student 	population, 	the 	Board
considered transportation, safety and access to programming, and the reassignment is
equitable and educationally sound.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the equities and interests do not weigh heavily in
favor of granting the petitioners’ requested relief because no evidence was presented as
to the specific harm the students would suffer if relief were not granted and respondents
have shown that they are and will provide the education they are obligated to provide
under the law, and that the reconfiguration and reassignment of schools, and repurposing
facilities was completed under an LRFP that was approved by the Board and the DOE.
Since I concluded that petitioners have not met all four conditions set forth in
Crowe, as codified in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b), I CONCLUDE that petitioner is not entitled to
emergency relief as requested, and the petitioners’ request for emergency relief is
DENIED.
ORDER
Based on the above discussion and conclusions of law, the petitioners have not
met the burden of establishing the right to emergent relief as they have failed to prevail

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
8
on all four factors of Crowe, and I ORDER that the petition for emergency relief is
DENIED. 	The case will now be scheduled for plenary hearing on the underlying due
process petition under a separate prehearing order.
This Order on application for emergency relief 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. 	The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. 	If
the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify
or reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final
decision on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
April 7, 2026
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 7, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 7, 2026

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05159-26
9
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
Kenneth Simmons
Corey Teague
For respondent:
None
Exhibits
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
R-A 	Board 	Resolution, 	dated April 	1, 	2026, 	to 	approve 	Phase 	3 	school
reconfiguration, student reassignment, program discontinuation and facility
repurposing
R-B 	Board Resolution, dated July 19, 2021, to authorize the submission of the
major amendment to the LRFP as prepared in conjunction with DMR
Architects to the DOE
R-C 	Letter from the DOE, dated August 25, 2021, approving the amendments to
the LRFP