D.D., on behalf of minor child, A.B. v. Board of Education of the Town of West New York, Hudson County, 3/17/2021. (#65-21)

65-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.D., on behalf of minor child, A.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Town of
West New York, Hudson County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner contended that her son was unfairly suspended from school during the 2019-2020
school year and sought his reinstatement. 	The respondent Board replied that its actions were
reasonable; compliant with applicable law and regulation; and that in any event, the suspension
was lifted during the 2019-2020 school year, rendering petitioner’s claims moot.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner confirmed in January 2021 that the suspension at issue had
been lifted, and A.B. had been returned to school remotely due to Covid-19; 	despite the fact that
petitioner agreed to withdraw the instant petition, she failed to do so; 	the Board thereafter filed a
motion to for summary decision. The ALJ concluded that, as the only relief petitioner sought in her
petition was the lifting of the suspension, this matter is now moot, and petitioner’s appeal must be
dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and
the petition was dismissed as moot.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
March 17, 2021

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05468-20
Agency Dkt. No. 101-5/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.D., on behalf of minor child, A.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Town of
West New York, Hudson County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon such review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)
conclusion that this matter is moot. Petitioner has already received the relief sought by the petition, as
A.B.’s suspension has been lifted and he has returned to class as a classified student.1 	Additionally,
petitioner indicated to the ALJ that she intended to withdraw this matter but failed to submit the
withdrawal in writing. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 17, 2021
Date of Mailing: 	March 21, 2021
1 The district has shifted to remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, to the extent that A.B. has not
returned to in-person learning, it is solely due to the pandemic and unrelated to any discipline.
2 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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 101-5/20
D.D. ON BEHALF OF A.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF
WEST NEW YORK, HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
D.D. on behalf of A.B., pro se
David I. Solomon, Esq., for respondent (Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt, Cappelli
Tipton and Taylor, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 1, 2021 	Decided: February 4, 2021
BEFORE ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner contends that her son was unfairly suspended from school during the
2019-2020 school year and seeks his reinstatement. 	The West New York Board of
Education (“the Board”) replies that its actions were always reasonable; compliant with

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
2
applicable law and regulation; and that in any event, the suspension was lifted during
the 2019-2020 school year, rendering petitioner’s claims moot.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A pro se petition of appeal was filed with the Commissioner of Education by D.D.
on April 16, 2020. 	An answer was filed on behalf of the Board, and the matter was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) as a contested case on June 8,
2020. 	The case was initially assigned to Judge Andrew Baron on July 17, 2020.3
Judge Baron scheduled a telephonic prehearing conference with the parties, but the
petitioner failed to appear. 	Before a follow-up attempt to confer with the parties took
place, the matter was reassigned to me on December 15, 2020.
I conferred with the parties on January 6, 2021, at which time D.D. confirmed that
the suspension at issue had been lifted, and that her son had been returned to school,
albeit remotely due to COVID-19. 	She moreover confirmed that, insofar as the only
relief she sought was his reinstatement, there was no further relief that I could offer her
in this forum. 	I suggested that she withdraw her petition of appeal and she agreed.
Thereafter, my assistant contacted petitioner two times to inquire about the withdrawal;
D.D. twice indicated it would be forthcoming. 	D.D. has not forwarded a letter of
withdrawal to date.
On January 12, 2021, I directed the parties to address in writing, before January
26, 2021, the question of whether the claims in the petition are moot. 	I received a
Motion for Summary Decision, letter memorandum and an accompanying certification of
Allan Roth, Esq., from counsel for the Board on January 26, 2021. I afforded petitioner
several more days to file her submission. But hearing nothing from her, I closed the
record on February 1, 2021.4
3 The slight delay in assigning the case was occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic.
4 The factual background set forth in the Roth certification is uncontested.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The salient facts are not in dispute, and I FIND:
A.B. was an eleventh-grade student during the 2019-2020 school year and
attended Memorial High School. After a disciplinary incident in January 2020, A.B. was
placed on a long-term suspension. 	A hearing was conducted before the Board on
February 12, 2020. 	Petitioner did not attend. 	Via letter dated February 21, 2020, she
was advised that the Board had upheld A.B.’s suspension through the end of the school
year 	and 	that 	he 	would 	be 	reinstated 	in 	September 	2020. 	He 	was 	placed 	on
homebound instruction. 	Thereafter, on March 13, 2020, and with his mother’s consent,
A.B. 	was 	classified 	as 	eligible 	for 	Special 	Education 	services; 	provided 	with 	an
Individualized Education Program (IEP); and his suspension was lifted.
But by March 16, 2020, classes had shifted to remote instruction for all West
New York students, A.B. included.5 Petitioner expresses concern in her petition that her
son was unable to participate in baseball during 2020, a sport in which he excelled.
Sadly, all extra-curricular activities, including baseball, were suspended in the Spring of
2020 in West New York due to COVID. 	The COVID crisis continues to date, and West
New York students continue to receive remote instruction, including A.B., who is now a
senior and on track to graduate provided he completes his coursework and achieves the
necessary grades.
I have carefully reviewed the petition of appeal, which in addition to alleging that
A.B. was unfairly disciplined, asserts that the Board, through its administration, was
responsible for a break-in and trespass at her home which took place after Board
representatives allegedly had complained about her to the West New York police; and
that school personnel gave false information to the West New York Housing Authority
with the intent to have her evicted. 	But the only relief sought in the petition is that A.B.
“be allowed to return to school.”
5 On or about March 9, 2020, Governor Murphy, via Executive Order 103, declared a public health
emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) provides that summary decision should be rendered “if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving
party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c), which
provides 	that 	“[t]he 	judgment 	or 	order 	sought 	shall 	be 	rendered 	forthwith 	if 	the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of
law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor
of the non-moving party. Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party . . . offers
. . . only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla,
‘Fanciful, frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the
court grants summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520,
529 (1995) (citing Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” 	Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986)). When the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law,” the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment. 	Liberty Lobby, 477
U.S. at 252. 	I CONCLUDE that this matter is ripe for summary decision. 	The facts
alleged by the Board are uncontested and its motion is unopposed. 	The Board is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
5
Petitioner 	has 	already 	received 	the 	relief 	sought 	by 	her 	petition. 	A.B.’s
suspension has been lifted, and he has been returned to classes as a classified student.
Petitioner has at no time suggested otherwise. 	While A.B. is engaged in remote
learning, this is due only to the pandemic, and not related to the controverted discipline.
Accordingly, the claims petitioner raises are moot and should be dismissed.
An action is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because
the issues raised have become academic. 	For reasons of judicial economy and
restraint, it is appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue presented is
hypothetical; judgement cannot grant effective relief; or the parties do not have a
concrete adversity of interest. 	Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super., 432, 437 (Ch. Div.
1976). 	See also: S.J. v Mountain Lakes Bd. of Educ., EDU 07081-03, Initial Decision
(October 7, 2003), aff’d Comm’r (November 17, 2003), aff’d., St. Bd. (February 3,
2004),<http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>.
There is no relief which I can afford this petitioner. 	An order lifting A.B.’s
suspension would at this juncture be purely academic.6 It is not my role, nor that of the
Commissioner, to function in the abstract or to enter rulings that are advisory.7 See: N.J.
Civil Service Ass’n v. State of New Jersey, 88 N.J. 605,611 (1982); Crescent Park
Tenants Assoc. v. Realty Eq. Corp. of New York, 58 N.J. 98, 107 (1971).
ORDER
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	petition 	of 	appeal 	be
DISMISSED.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
6 It bears reiterating that an end to the suspension is the only relief sought by the petition.
7 To the extent that the petitioner alleges that actions by school personnel were harassing or resulted in a
break-in at her home, these claims do not arise under the school laws and accordingly, are not
cognizable in this forum. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. It is well-established that claims concerning school staff do
not necessarily arise under the school laws. See: Bd. of Educ. of East Brunswick v. Twp. Council, 48 N.J.
94, 102 (1966).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05468-20
6
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, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4 th Floor, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
February 4, 2021
DATE 	ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 4, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: 	February 4, 2021
sej