You are here: / / Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review...
,

Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the SUNY Trustees’ Authorization of Charter Schools—The Authorization Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion

The Second Department determined parents of children in public schools had standing to bring an Article 78 petition for a review of the SUNY Trustee’s authorization for charter schools. The court determined the authorization was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion, noting that there was no requirement of majority community support:

The petitioners, a group of parents of children in public schools in Community School District 14 and an organization they founded to oppose the subject charter schools, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the SUNY Trustees’ determination authorizing the charters. The amended petition alleged that the SUNY Trustees authorized the charters in violation of Education Law §§ 2851(2)(q), 2852(9-a)(b)(ii), and 2852(2)(a), in that [the charter school organization] failed to demonstrate adequate community support, outreach, or input, and therefore, the charters should be voided. * * *

In authorizing the issuance of charters to the subject schools, the SUNY Trustees were required to find that the proposed schools met all requirements of the Charter School Act (see Education Law § 2852[2][a]). Given the representations and support therefor contained in [the] applications, the SUNY Trustees’ determination that [the charter school organization] met the statutory requirements with regard to evidence “of adequate community support for and interest in the charter school sufficient to allow the school to reach its anticipated enrollment” (Education Law § 2851[2][q]), and public outreach to solicit community input and address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students (see Education Law § 2852[9-a][b][ii]…), was, insofar as relevant here, not arbitrary and capricious. As the SUNY Trustees and the charter schools correctly contend, majority community support is not required by the Charter Schools Act (see Education Law § 2851[2][q]). Matter of Williamsburg & Greenpoint Parents: Our Pub. Schools! v Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 05690, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

You might also like
AN ACTION FOR “STRICT FORECLOSURE” PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1352 ALLOWS THE PURCHASER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO EXTINGUISH ANY POTENTIAL CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY BY A NECESSARY PARTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
Property Was Not Transferred Until Escrow Conditions Were Met—Appellant Did Not Own the Building Where Plaintiff Slipped and Fell Because the Escrow Conditions Were Not Met and the Deed Was Not Released from Escrow Until the Day After the Slip and Fall
FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, UNTESTED EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT CONFERENCES NOT SUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Statements in Hospital Records Attributable to Plaintiff Not Admissible Because Not Germane to Treatment or Diagnosis/Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Not Have Been Allowed to Comment on Defense’s Failure to Call the Nurse Who Was Going to Testify About the Statements—New Trial Ordered
HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) WOULD FORCE THE TOWN TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Doctor Who Allegedly Wrongfully Prescribed Narcotics for a Drug Addict Who Shot Plaintiff’s Decedent in an Attempt to Steal Narcotics from a Pharmacy Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent
ALLOWING UBER DRIVERS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE APPLICATION IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF TAXI CAB AND LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Police Vehicles Are Excluded from the Meaning of “Motor Vehicle”... Non-Resident Shareholders In an S Corporation Who Sold their Stock and Treated...