S.N.K. AND S.K., on behalf of minor child, S.N.K., JR. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, BERGEN COUNTY, 11/17/11, (#518-11)

#518-11 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu13039-10_2.html)
S.N.K. and S.K. on behalf of minor child 	:
S.N.K., JR.,
:
PETITIONERS,
: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V.
: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL 	:
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN
COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioners challenged the Board’s decision to suspend their son from two varsity basketball games
and several scrimmages as discipline for conduct that occurred off school premises in October 2010 –
specifically, under-aged consumption of alcohol. 	Petitioners applied for emergent relief in
December 2010, but were denied. There was no dispute regarding the fact that S.N.K., Jr., consumed
alcohol and was under-age. 	Rather, petitioners contended that respondent Board overreached its
authority by disciplining S.N.K., Jr., for an episode of underage drinking that took place at a private
gathering off school grounds, and argued that a school district cannot – through a policy or student
handbook – grant itself disciplinary authority that it would not have under law. In the interim since
the petition was filed, S.N.K., Jr. served his suspension from the basketball team, participated in the
balance of the basketball season, and subsequently graduated respondent’s high school.
The ALJ determined that the failure to obtain emergent relief rendered this matter moot, as the
discipline in question was served prior to consideration of the case on its merits. In so determining,
the ALJ commented that both the school district’s handbook for students and a contractual agreement
for student athletes – which both S.N.K., Jr. and his parents signed – prohibit the use of drugs and
alcohol by both students and athletes, and further found that the Board does have the authority to
discipline those who are in violation of drug and alcohol codes.
Upon full consideration, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that this appeal is moot. 	In so
determining, the Commissioner commented on the petitioners’ exceptions – which urged that the
issue underlying their appeal is likely to recur, is capable of evading review, and should be
adjudicated pursuant to principles set forth in prior cited case law. The Commissioner noted that – in
order to preserve judicial resources – abstract issues are generally not adjudicated. 	When moot
controversies are adjudicated, the underlying issues must be of substantial public importance – such
as those addressed in the cases to which petitioners cite in their exceptions. 	Under the facts in the
present matter where petitioners had agreed that the student athlete would refrain from any alcohol
consumption, the Commissioner declined to adjudicate respondent’s application of its policy to
S.N.K., Jr. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as moot.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
November 17, 2011

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13039-10
AGENCY DKT. NO. 694-11/10
S.N.K. and S.K. on behalf of minor child 	:
S.N.K., JR.,
:
PETITIONERS,
: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V.
: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL 	:
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN
COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
____________________________________
This appeal arose when respondent disciplined the petitioners’ minor child,
S.N.K., Jr., for a second incident of underage drinking that occurred off school premises. It does
not appear that petitioners deny that their son consumed alcohol on the occasions identified in
respondent’s pleadings.
The designated discipline was S.N.K.’s exclusion from participation in three
scrimmages and two basketball games during the 2010-2011 basketball season. 	Petitioners’
application for emergent relief was denied, and the discipline was imposed. 	S.N.K. apparently
participated 	in 	the 	balance 	of 	the 	basketball 	season 	and, 	subsequently, 	graduated 	from
respondent’s high school.
Upon review of the record, Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), and the parties’ exceptions, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) that this appeal is moot. In their exceptions, however, petitioners urge that the issue

2
underlying their appeal is likely to recur and is capable of evading review. Thus, they contend, it
should be adjudicated, pursuant to the principles set forth in such cases as In re Geraghty,
68 N.J. 209, 212-13 (1975); Advance Elec. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Twp. Bd. of Educ., 351 N.J.
Super. 160, 166-68 (App. Div. 2002), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 364 (2002); In re Conroy, N.J.
Super. 453, 458-59 (App. Div. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 98 N.J. 321, 342 (1985).
In the interest of preserving judicial resources, abstract issues – such as the instant moot
controversy – are generally not adjudicated. See Oxfeld v. New Jersey State Bd. of Educ., 68 N.J.
301, 303-04 (1975); Sente v. Mayor & Mun. Council of Clifton, 66 N.J. 204, 205 (1974). Such
moot controversies may be adjudicated, however, if the underlying issues are of substantial
importance, likely to reoccur, but capable of evading review. 	See, e.g., Division of Youth &
Family Servs. v. J.B., 120 N.J. 112, 118-19 (1990); Matter of J.I.S. Indus. Serv. Co. Landfill, 110
N.J. 101, 104-05 (1988); Matter of Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 342 (1985); Guttenberg Sav. & Loan
Ass'n v. Rivera, 85 N.J. 617, 622-23 (1981).
The cases upon which petitioners rely were of substantial public importance.
More specifically, In re Geraghty resolved questions about the legal rights and procedures
requisite to involuntary civil commitments. Advance Elec. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Twp. Bd. of
Educ. concerned the regulation of subcontractors hired for school construction, and In re Conroy
addressed the bioethical issues pertinent to the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment.
In the context of a different set of circumstances, petitioner’s challenge to
respondent’s application of its policy to impose discipline upon S.N.K., Jr. for off-campus,
underage 	drinking 	might 	have 	presented 	an 	important 	enough 	controversy 	to 	warrant
adjudication, notwithstanding its mootness as regards S.N.K., Jr.. Although the Commissioner
certainly regards alcohol consumption by underage drinkers as a serious societal concern, the

3
facts in this case mitigate against further litigation. 	Respondent’s Student-Parent Handbook
(Exhibit B to the December 6, 2010 Certification of Joseph J. Occhino, Principal of Northern
Highlands Regional High School) clearly sets forth the expectations for student athletes. Those
expectations expressly include complete abstinence from alcohol either on or off campus. Id. at
45. 	The consequences for deviation from those expectations are clearly set forth in the same
Handbook on page 16, and include the penalties that were imposed upon S.N.K., Jr. 	On
September 1, 2010, both S.K. and her son, S.N.K., Jr., signed a form verifying that they had
reviewed the standards and expectations set forth in the handbook and that they understood that
students would be held accountable for conforming to same.
Thus, S.N.K.’s temporary exclusion from the privilege of extracurricular athletics
flowed not just from respondent’s policies, but also from a contract between petitioners and
respondent. 	The Commissioner will not adjudicate an action to which petitioners gave their
consent, and which is no longer applicable to petitioners’ son.
Accordingly, the Commissioner dismisses the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: November 17, 2011
Date of Mailing: 	November 18, 2011
1 	This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36.
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1)