Brian Pincus v. Robbinsville Board of Education, Mercer County, 10/5/26 (#397-26)

397-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07698-26
Agency Dkt. No. 184-05-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Brian Pincus,
Petitioner,
v.
Robbinsville 	Board 	of 	Education, 	Mercer
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 concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that
summary decision is appropriate because none of the material facts are disputed. Additionally,
the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Robbinsville Board of Education (Board) did not
act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably when it eliminated courtesy busing for the 2026-
2027 school year for all non-remote students due to budgetary constraints. The Commissioner
has previously held that boards have no legal obligation to provide courtesy busing to non-
remote students. 	Paolo Racli v. Patrick J. Fletcher, Executive County Superintendent, Bergen
County, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06614-25, Initial Decision at 7-8 (Aug. 11, 2025), adopted,
Commissioner Decision No. 506-25 (Oct. 24, 2025).

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, the Board’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 5, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	October 6, 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
GRANTING SUMMARY
DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 184-05-26
BRIAN PINCUS,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBBINSVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MERCER COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Brian Pincus, petitioner, pro se
Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq., for respondent, Robbinsville Board of Education (Lenox
Law Firm, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 31, 2026 Decided: August 21, 2026
BEFORE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ:
Petitioner Brian Pincus seeks a decision requiring respondent Robbinsville Board
of Education (Board or District) to provide transportation for non-remote students
attending its school who had previously been provided courtesy busing under the
hazardous-route designation. Respondent opposes this action on the grounds that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
2
District has no legal obligation to provide transportation to remote students. Moreover,
although courtesy busing had been provided to remote students designated in
hazardous areas, all courtesy busing was eliminated in the 2026–2027 budget, which
was adopted in April 2026. The respondent seeks summary decision dismissing the
complaint, as there is no legal basis to require busing for remote students.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
An emergent petition was filed by Pincus on May 17, 2026, requesting that the
Robbinsville Board of Education continue to provide courtesy busing to remote
students. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on May 15,
206. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to B-15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to F-3. Respondent filed opposition
to the petition, and petitioner filed a reply to the opposition. Oral argument was heard
on May 27, 2026, and an order denying the requested relief was entered. The matter
proceeded on a non-emergent track. The respondent filed a motion for summary
decision on July 31, 2026. No opposition was filed and the record closed on that date.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having reviewed the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion for
summary decision, I FIND the following FACTS:
1. Petitioner is a resident of Robbinsville, N.J.
2. Courtesy busing had been provided to the petitioner’s child or children under
the provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.4(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.8.
3. In April 2026, the District adopted a budget for the 2026–2027 school year that
eliminated all courtesy busing for the 2026−2027 school year.
4. The petitioner has argued that his children are on a hazardous route and
seeks to have the courtesy busing continued.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
3
5. Busing has been offered for a fee to petitioner’s children and all other children
similarly situated in the district whose courtesy busing has been eliminated in
the 2026−2027 budget.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is defined and is limited
to “controversies and disputes arising under the school laws.” In Dunellen Bd. of Educ.
v. Dunellen Educ. Ass’n, 64 N.J. 17, 23 (1973), the New Jersey Supreme Court
concluded that “the Legislature enacted provisions entrusting school supervision and
management to local school boards . . . subject to the supervisory control [of] . . . the
State Commissioner of Education.”
The regulations governing such disputes before the Commissioner of Education
provide that “[w]here the subject matter of the controversy is a particular course of
action by a district board of education or any other party subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner, the petitioner may include with the petition of appeal, a separate motion
for emergent relief or a stay of that action pending the Commissioner’s final decision in
the contested case.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(a). The regulations further provide that the
Commissioner may “[t]ransmit the motion to the OAL for immediate hearing on the
motion.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(c)(3).
The issue in this case is whether Robbinsville is obligated to continue to provide
“courtesy busing” on those routes that were previously designated as “hazardous
routes.” It is well settled that districts have an obligation to provide transportation to
public-school students who reside remotely from their assigned school of attendance.
“Remote” is defined as beyond two miles for elementary school students and beyond
two and one-half miles for high school students. N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(i). “District
boards of education may provide for the transportation of students who reside less than
remote from their school in accordance with district board of education policies and at
the school district’s expense.” N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.4(a).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
4
When a district provides courtesy busing, the district must adopt a policy
regarding the transportation of students who must walk to and from school along
hazardous routes. The policy shall include a list of hazardous routes in the district
where the district provides courtesy busing of students and the criteria used in
designating the hazardous routes, which may include the following:
1. Population density;
2. Traffic volume;
3. Average vehicle velocity;
4. Existence or absence of sufficient sidewalk space;
5. Roads and highways that are winding or have blind
curves;
6. Roads and highways with steep inclines and declines;
7. Drop-offs that are in close proximity to a sidewalk;
8. Bridges or overpasses that must be crossed to reach
the school;
9. Train tracks or trestles that must be crossed to reach
the school; and
10. Busy roads or highways that must be crossed to
reach the school.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.5(a).]
Consistent with the foregoing statute and regulations, Robbinsville provided
courtesy busing for a number of years. However, due to budget constraints, all courtesy
busing was eliminated in the 2026–2027 school budget, which was adopted in April
2026. The budget was legally passed, and there is no argument made with respect to
the budgetary process.
Petitioner has not submitted any viable legal argument in support of his
complaint. He argues that because these routes had previously been designated as
hazardous, the Board has a continuing obligation to provide courtesy busing. However,
there is no support for this argument. Petitioner’s reliance on Holland is misplaced.
G.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of Holland Twp., No. 148-20, Comm’r (July 16, 2020),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/, stands for the proposition that when you provide
courtesy busing, or remove it, it must be done equitably. In this case, all courtesy
busing has been eliminated for everyone in the district. There is no legal support for
requiring busing for non-remote students.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
5
Petitioner argues that the prior designation of hazardous routes, which was
required under applicable regulations, somehow creates a continuing legal obligation to
continue such courtesy busing. However, neither the regulations, the statute, nor any
case law supports such a legal obligation on the school district. Moreover, there has
been no showing that the elimination of such busing was arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable. The prior offering of courtesy busing does not create a legal obligation to
continue to provide such busing. Moreover, the statute and regulations are clear that
districts are not obligated to provide, or continue to provide, courtesy busing to
non-remote students.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that there are no issues of fact in dispute and the
respondent is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law and the petition is
hereby 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 07698-26
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.
August 21, 2026
DATE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SGC/onl

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07698-26
7
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision and Petitioner’s Opposition