You are here: / / THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE...

THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN SESSION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that Education Law 3635 should not be interpreted to require school districts to provide transportation to nonpublic schools when public schools are not in session:

As is relevant here, Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) states that “[s]ufficient transportation facilities . . . shall be provided by the school district for all the children residing within the school district to and from the school they legally attend, who are in need of such transportation because of the remoteness of the school to the child or for the promotion of the best interest of such children.” * * *

We reject Supreme Court’s broad view of the statute not only because it runs afoul of the legislative history, but also because it would lead to unreasonable results … . To be sure, the Legislature could not have intended to require school districts to transport nonpublic school students in the summer, on weekends, on state or federal holidays, or on days when public schools are closed for weather-related or other emergency reasons, none of which would be foreclosed by Supreme Court’s interpretation. … [W]e hold that Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) permits, but does not require, school districts outside New York City to transport nonpublic school students to and from school on days when the public schools are closed. Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 03566, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Here the legislative history of Education Law 3635 was consulted to determine that school districts are permitted, but not required, to provide transportation to nonpublic-school students went the public schools are not in session.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A RESIDENT OF THE HOME WHICH WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY LANGUAGE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION SHE PRIMARILY RESIDED IN ANOTHER HOME TEN MINUTES AWAY 3RD DEPT.
Imputed Income, As Opposed to Actual Income, Used to Determine Mother’s Contribution to College Costs
Proof Requirements for an Employment-Discrimination Action (Executive Law 296) Explained
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALTHOUGH POORLY DRAFTED, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEPARTED FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A SPINAL FUSION PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE FACILITY SUBMITTED WHILE THE CHALLENGE TO A PRIOR APPLICATION WAS PENDING REQUIRED A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW OR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION WAIVING A NEW REVIEW; MATTER REMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
​FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A LINCOLN HEARING TO DETERMINE THE WISHES OF THE CHILD, WHO WAS ABOUT TO TURN 16, IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Complaint Against Highest Bidder on Real Property Which Subsequently Refused to Execute the Contract of Sale Properly Dismissed—No Agreement Which Satisfied the Statute of Frauds and No Part Performance
CLAIMANT’S BEHAVIOR, ALLEGED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT AND INSUBORDINATION, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT, CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF FELT HIS ARM SNAP WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LIFT A 400 POUND ELEVATOR PLATFORM... THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MISINTERPRETED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 4...