Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17816
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 17:03:00
Document Index: 102923784

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§310', '§2853', '§2853', '§7803', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§7803', '§7803', '§7803', '§2853', '§7803', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§276', '§3602', '§2853', '§2853', '§2851']

Decision No. 17,816 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 17,816
Appeal of BROOKLYN PROSPECT CHARTER SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
Cohen Schneider Law, P.C., attorneys for petitioner, Cliff S. Schneider and Cory S. Storch, Esqs., of counsel
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Mark G. Toews, Esq., of counsel
TAHOE., Interim Commissioner.--Petitioner, Brooklyn Prospect Charter School, an existing education corporation with authority to operate Brooklyn Prospect Charter School – CSD 15 (“BPCS 15” or “the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer petitioner a co-location site for the school in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at DOE’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e). The appeal must be sustained.
Petitioner is authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) to operate multiple charter schools, including BPCS 15. According to petitioner, the school currently serves students in grades 7 through 12. Petitioner states that, in March 2019, BPCS 15’s charter was renewed by SUNY for five years, and the school was authorized to expand to serve students in kindergarten through grade 4. According to petitioner, the school will expand to serve students in kindergarten in the 2020-2021 school year; grade 1 in the 2021-2022 school year, grade 2 in the 2022-2023 school year; and grade 3 in the 2023-2024 school year.[1]
On August 29, 2019, a written request for co-location was submitted for the school’s kindergarten through grade 5, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e).[2] By letter dated December 27, 2019, DOE acknowledged the request for space, but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.” This appeal ensued.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility for the school, at no cost to the school, in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e). As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance for the school’s grades 1 through 3 in accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).
Respondent admits that it failed to offer petitioner a co-location site for the school in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school, and that petitioner is eligible for a finding in its favor, but requests that the appeal be dismissed in its entirety.
Preliminarily, I note that this appeal was commenced pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), which was added by Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014. Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) provides that a charter school in the City School District of the City of New York shall have the option of appealing the “city school district’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site through ... an expedited appeal to the commissioner” pursuant to Education Law §310 and the procedures prescribed in Education Law §2853(3)(a-5). Pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3), in any such appeal, the standard of review shall be the standard prescribed in Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §7803.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer a co-location site for the school in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility for its grades 1 through 3,[3] at no cost to the school, in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e). Education Law §2853(3)(e) provides that, in the City School District of the City of New York, charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level approved by their charter entity for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and request co-location in a public school building, shall be provided access to facilities. The statute also requires that, within the later of five months after a charter school’s written request for co-location and 30 days after the charter school’s charter is approved by the charter entity, the city school district shall offer the charter school either a co-location site in a public school building approved by the board of education as provided by law at no cost to the charter school, or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the charter school (Education Law §2853[3][e][1]).
Here, DOE responded to the August 29, 2019 co-location request but did not offer petitioner a co-location site for BPCS 15 in a public school building or space in a privately-owned or other publicly-owned facility, at no cost to the school. However, in response to the request, DOE was required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1) to offer petitioner space for the school in a privately-owned or publicly-owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the school. As DOE has not offered any facilities at the expense of the city school district and at no cost to the school, it failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).
The standard of review in an appeal pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e) is the standard prescribed in CPLR §7803, which lists questions that may be raised in a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78. The question set forth in CPLR §7803(1) is whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law. The question set forth in CPLR §7803(3) is whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed. Although Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) does not specify which specific provision of CPLR §7803 applies, I find that, under either subdivision (1) or (3), petitioner has carried its burden of establishing the facts and law upon which it seeks relief.
The record in this case indicates that BPCS 15 was approved by its charter entity in March 2019 to expand to serve additional grades, including students in grades 1 through 3.[4] The school will expand to serve students in grade 1 in the 2021-2022 school year, grade 2 in the 2022-2023 school year, and grade 3 in the 2023-2024 school year, expansions for which it requires additional space.[5] Therefore, on the record before me, I find that petitioner has established that BPCS 15 requires additional space due to an expansion of grade level that was approved by its charter entity for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter. Petitioner has, thus, met all the statutory criteria and is entitled either to a co-location or to an offer of private or other publicly-owned space for the school (see Education Law §2853[3][e]).
Accordingly, having failed to make such an offer, DOE must, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), pay petitioner for the school, commencing with the 2021-2022 school year, and in each remaining year of the school’s current charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, rental assistance based on student enrollment in the newly-added grades for which the school has been approved to provide instruction.[6] Specifically, with respect to an existing charter school whose expansion of grade level is approved by its charter entity, “if the appeal results in a determination in favor of the charter school, the city school district shall pay the charter school an amount attributable to the grade level expansion” that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).
Therefore, DOE must pay petitioner for the school’s newly-added grade 1 commencing in the 2021-2022 school year, grade 2 commencing in the 2022-2023 school year, and grade 3 commencing in the 2023-2024 school year, and in each remaining year of the school’s current charter term and any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, an amount attributable to its expansion to grades 1 through 3 that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).
In this instance, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to select an alternative privately-owned site for the school, and respondent must afford petitioner an opportunity to do so. Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately-owned site so that DOE can determine whether such rental cost is less than the amount computed pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5)(B).
Nothing herein should be construed to prevent DOE from offering petitioner co-location space for the school in the future.
IT IS ORDERED that respondent comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay for the school’s newly-added grades for each remaining year of the current charter term and for any subsequent renewal term, provided that, in any such renewal term, the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter referenced herein, an amount attributable to the grade-level expansion that is calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5).
[1] Pursuant to §276.6 of the Commissioner’s regulations, I have taken administrative notice of the records on file with the New York State Education Department regarding petitioner and the school.
[2] In its written request, petitioner lists kindergarten through grade 5 as the grades for which it is requesting co-location space. However, petitioner states that, through its petition, it is only seeking co-location space for the school’s grades 1 through 3. Moreover, in its request for relief in the petition, petitioner seeks rental assistance only for the school’s “grade level expansion (grades One through Three).” Therefore, petitioner’s written request to respondent regarding the school’s kindergarten, grade 4, and grade 5 need not and will not be addressed in this appeal.
[3] See footnote 2.
[5] According to the chief financial officer of petitioner’s charter management organization, as a result of DOE’s failure to offer space, the school will incur rental costs and expenses.
[6] To be eligible for an apportionment pursuant to Education Law §3602(6-g) where the charter school has prevailed in an appeal to the Commissioner pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), DOE must document all expenses incurred pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) for each such charter school for the term of the charter indicated in the Commissioner’s decision, including any renewals pursuant to Education Law §2851(4), provided that the charter school serves the grades encompassed by the charter that was the subject of the Commissioner’s decision (see New York State Education Department, Update on Facilities Assistance Guidance for NYC Charter Schools, dated November 3, 2016).