N.S.-G., on behalf of minor child, G.G. v. Board of Trustees of the Benjamin Banneker Preparatory Charter School, Burlington County, 5/8/25 (#253-25E)

253-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06914-25
Agency Dkt. No. 110-4/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
N.S.-G., on behalf of minor child, G.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Benjamin Banneker
Preparatory Charter School, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has 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.
The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ that petitioner’s challenge to the five-day
suspension imposed on her child is moot, as the suspension was rescinded by the Board. However,
regarding the 504 plan requested by petitioner, although the record indicates that the parties met to
discuss the plan, it does not reflect whether the parties reached an agreement regarding the plan.
Accordingly, the Commissioner cannot conclude at this time that this issue is moot.
The ALJ’s Order further concludes that the portion of the petition requesting the cessation of
the Board’s harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, and that the portion of the petition requesting that the code of conduct be removed

2
from G.G.’s record should be dismissed because it is not ripe. As such, the ALJ dismissed the petition.
However, such an action is not appropriate as part of an Order on emergent relief, as N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.1(b) provides that decisions that are fully dispositive of all issues in the case are initial decisions.
When an initial decision is issued, the parties have the opportunity to file exceptions pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, but there is no such opportunity for the parties to take exception to an Order on
emergent relief. 	Without affording the parties that opportunity, the Commissioner finds that
dismissal at this stage of the proceedings is inappropriate.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. To the extent that the Order dismisses petitioner’s claims
regarding the 504 plan, the discipline imposed on her child, and the HIB investigation, the Order is
rejected. This matter shall continue at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) with such proceedings
as the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 8, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	May 9, 2025
1 The Commissioner acknowledges that confusion may have arisen in this matter due to the petitioner’s use of the
Office of Special Education’s (OSE) emergent relief request forms, as matters transmitted to the OAL by the OSE
follow different procedures and may be fully resolved in an emergent proceeding. The Office of Controversies and
Disputes attempted to clarify the procedures to be used in this matter by specifying in its transmittal that this matter
is not a special education matter and indicating that the merits of the underlying petition should be addressed
following resolution of the request for emergent relief. However, to the extent that further clarity may be useful,
the Commissioner leaves it to the ALJ to determine whether to issue an Initial Decision at this stage or to undertake
further proceedings with regard to petitioner's claims regarding the 504 plan, the discipline imposed on her child,
and the HIB investigation, provided that whichever choice the ALJ makes, the proceedings result in an Initial Decision
to which the parties can file exceptions (unless the matter is resolved by other means, such as a settlement
agreement or withdrawal by petitioner).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 110-4/25
N.S-G., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD
G.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BENJAMIN
BANNEKER PREPARATORY CHARTER
SCHOOL, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
N.S-G., on behalf of G.G., petitioner, pro se
Stefani C. Schwartz, Esq., for respondent (Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC,
attorneys)
BEFORE DEIRDRE HARTMAN-ZOHLMAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, N.S-G., on behalf of minor child G.G., moves for emergent relief seeking
a 504 plan and appeals a five-day suspension. Additionally, G.G. was charged with a
code of conduct violation for inappropriate behavior that she wants removed from her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
2
record. Lastly, petitioner wants a related harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB)
investigation to cease.
Respondent, the Board of Trustees of the Benjamin Banneker Preparatory Charter
School (School), agreed to meet regarding setting up a 504 plan and has rescinded the
five-day suspension. Moreover, it asserts the code of conduct violation is not ripe, as
petitioner has failed to follow the process to appeal the code of conduct violation. Lastly,
respondent asserts that there is no jurisdiction to stop the HIB investigation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a verified petition and request for emergent relief with the
Commissioner of the Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes
(DOE). On April 22, 2025, the DOE transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL), where it was filed as a contested case seeking emergent relief. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The argument was heard on April 29, 2025,
and the record closed that day.
The request for emergent relief is now ripe for adjudication.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. G.G. is currently an eighth-grade student at respondent school.
2. On April 11, 2025, petitioner requested assistance with a 504 plan.
Respondent did not respond.
3. On April 17, 2025, G.G. was involved in an incident at the school. As a
result of the same, G.G. received a code of conduct violation for
inappropriate behavior;1 she was notified of a five-day out-of-school
1 G.G. was initially charged with a violation of dangerous behavior; however, the school later amended it
to inappropriate behavior. (R-1.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
3
suspension upon return from spring break, effective April 28, 2025, through
May 2, 2025, and a HIB investigation was initiated as to that and other
incidents.
4. There is a code of conduct for the school and a process for appealing
findings of violations.
5. By letter dated April 24, 2025, the school advised petitioner that it would
schedule a 504 meeting upon return from spring break and that it rescinded
the suspension.2 (R-1.)
6. The parties met to set up a 504 plan on April 29, 2025.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The 504 meeting and five-day suspension
G.G. seeks a 504 plan and a rescission of the suspension. However, the parties
have already met to discuss a 504 plan, and the school has already rescinded the
suspension.
Respondent seeks dismissal of these claims as moot, as there is no relief available
to her in this forum.
An action is moot when the decision sought “can have no practical effect on the
existing controversy.” Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015). For reasons of judicial
economy and restraint, it is appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue
presented is hypothetical, judgment 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); Fox v. Twp. of E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., EDU 10067-98, Initial Decision
2 Initially the school indicated it rescinded the out-of-school suspension but subsequently clarified this
included any in-school suspension as well. (R-2.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
4
(March 19, 1999), aff’d, Comm’r (May 3, 1999), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/,
J.L. and K.D. ex rel. J.L. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDS 13858-13,
Final Decision (January 28, 2014).
Here, a 504 plan meeting was held, and the five-day suspension was rescinded.
A review of the facts here leads to the conclusion that no issue remains as to which
judgment can grant effective relief, as the petitioner has already received the relief she
seeks on these issues.
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petition should be dismissed with
prejudice as moot because the requested relief has already been provided.
B. The HIB investigation
G.G. seeks to have the HIB investigation cease. The respondent seeks dismissal
of these claims for a lack of jurisdiction.
It was the intent of the Legislature in enacting the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act”
to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in
school and off school premises. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1, -13.2. Moreover, each school
shall adopt a policy for HIB and have local control over its content. N.J.S.A 18A:37-15.
The facts of the HIB investigation were not within the papers submitted by the
parties. It is the school’s duty to investigate HIB and to create procedures for doing such.
The HIB investigation is ongoing, and there was no information presented that would
suggest that interference or cessation of the investigation would be appropriate, lawful or
within the jurisdiction of this tribunal to do so.
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petition, as it requests that the HIB
investigation cease, should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
5
C. The code-of-conduct violation
G.G. seeks to have the violation for inappropriate behavior removed from her
school record. The respondent seeks dismissal of these claims as it is not ripe.
In applying the ripeness doctrine, the relevant factors are whether the legal issues
are “suitable for resolution [and] the hardship to the parties of withholding court
consideration.” Skurbe v. Bd. of Educ. of Monroe, EDU 05352-19, Initial Decision (June
27, 2019) (citations omitted), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/
oal/html/initial/edu05352-19_1.html, Final Decision (July 22, 2019),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/ collections/oal/final/edu05352-19_2.pdf. Respondent has a
code of conduct and procedures and processes for violations thereof. Petitioner has not
availed herself of those processes, and, therefore, petitioner’s claim is not ripe.
Lastly, assuming, arguendo, that petitioner’s claim to remove the violation for
inappropriate behavior was ripe, it would fail to meet the standards for granting such relief
pursuant to Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner's claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the underlying claim; and
4. 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.
[N.J.S.A. 6A:3-1.6(b).]
Petitioner will not suffer irreparable harm because she may appeal the decision to
the Board of Directors of the school and subsequently to the Department of Education.
The legal right for her to appeal is well settled, but it cannot be stated that there is a
likelihood of success in her prevailing on the merits in the underlying claim. The claim

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
6
would require a fact-specific review in a due process hearing. Lastly, in balancing the
interests of the parties, I find that petitioner will not suffer greater harm than respondent
if the requested relief is not granted.
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petition, as it requests that the code
of conduct violation be removed from her record, should be dismissed with prejudice as
unripe and for failing to meet the standard for interim relief.
ORDER
Accordingly, I ORDER that the petitioner’s application for emergent relief be and
hereby is DENIED. From my review of the record, I understand that there are no other
issues to be decided on the underlying petition, and accordingly, the petition is
DISMISSED.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by 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
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 30, 2025
DATE DEIRDRE HARTMAN-ZOHLMAN, ALJ
cc: OAL Clerk, Tr.
DHZ/kd/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06914-25
7
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
None
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 Request for emergent relief, dated April 21, 2025, and attachments
For respondent:
R-1 Letter, dated April 24, 2025
R-2 Letter, dated April 28, 2025