You are here: / / UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE...

UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OR A SCHOOL DISTRICT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, reversing the Commissioner (Education) and Supreme Court, determined the Education Law did not allow the Department of Education (DOE) to regulate every aspect of a charter school’s pre-kindergarten program. The relevant statute specifically allows the charter school to oversee its own program:

​

Initially, Education Law § 3602-ee (12) unambiguously provides charter entities with authority in regard to the programming and operations of prekindergarten programs funded pursuant to the statute. It provides, in relevant part, that “charter schools shall be eligible to participate in universal full-day pre[]kindergarten programs under [Education Law § 3602-ee], provided that all such monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements under [Education Law § 3602-ee] shall be the responsibility of the charter entity and shall be consistent with the requirements under [Education Law article 56]” (Education Law § 3602-ee [12]). In this context, the term “all” could refer to “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of,” or “as much as possible,” or “every” or “any whatever” … . Regardless of the exact word sense of “all” that the Legislature intended, under any applicable plain and obvious meaning of the term, the Legislature’s use of the term “all” tasked the charter entity with full responsibility for the relevant “monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements” for the relevant prekindergarten programs (Education Law § 3602-ee [12]) … . The plain meaning of the provision in no way indicates that another entity — such as a school district — holds concurrent responsibility or authority in this regard, let alone superior authority. Matter of DeVera v Elia, 2017 NY Slip Op 04522, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)/CHARTER SCHOOLS (EDUCATION LAW, CONTROL OVER PROGRAMS, UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)

You might also like
SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT).
Transmission Line from Hydroelectric Power Facility in Canada to Queens Properly Approved
Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief Lawsuit Was Fraudulent
IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).
NEITHER THE “HABIT” NOR THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Restrictive Covenants in Homeowners’ Association’s Declaration Do Not Apply to Land Along a Road Which Had Been Dedicated by the Association to the Town
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED; DEFENDANT THEN CONSENTED TO A RESENTENCE WHICH WAS LONGER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY PROMISED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, THE RESENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED; THE SENTENCING JUDGE CAN FASHION A SENTENCE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROMISE BY REDUCING THE OFFENSE CHARGED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (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

WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT... PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED...