MOHAMMAD AHAD V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW UNIT AND STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, 7/26/28, (#227)

227-18
MOHAMMAD AHAD, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 	: 	DECISION
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY REVIEW UNIT, AND 	:
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner – a school bus driver – appealed the Department’s determination to suspend his school bus
endorsement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-26 et seq. after an incident in which a sleeping student, B.O.,
remained on the bus following her drop off point at the Dale Avenue School. Petitioner did not complete
a visual inspection of the bus prior to leaving the drop off point, and was unaware of the student’s
presence until he was contacted by a school administrator who requested that he inspect the bus after
discovering that B.O. was not in school. Petitioner contended that because he was still driving when the
student was discovered, B.O. was never left alone on the bus. 	The parties filed cross motions for
summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; on September 8, 2017, petitioner picked up B.O. for transport to the Dale Avenue
School; petitioner failed to complete a visual inspection of the bus prior to leaving the drop off point at
Dale Avenue School; 	B.O. remained on the bus, sleeping, beyond her drop off point, and was not
discovered until a school administrator telephoned petitioner to request that he inspect the bus; a visual
inspection of the school bus at the end of the transportation route is required under N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28; it
is undisputed that petitioner left a student on his bus after dropping all other students off at school;
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29, a school bus driver found to have left a pupil on the school bus at the end
of a route shall have his school bus endorsement suspended for six months for the first offense.
Accordingly, the ALJ granted respondent’s motion for summary decision, denied petitioner’s cross
motion for summary decision, and dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
Upon full review and consideration of the record, Commissioner concurred with the findings and
determinations of the ALJ. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the respondent was directed to
notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation to suspend petitioner’s school bus endorsement
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-26 et seq., and to notify petitioner’s employer that he is ineligible for the
period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
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.
July 26, 2018

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
AGENCY DKT. NO. 228-9/17
MOHAMMAD AHAD, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 	: 	DECISION
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY REVIEW UNIT, AND 	:
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that
the Office of Criminal History Review Unit (CHRU) is entitled to summary decision. 	Accordingly,
CHRU’s motion for summary decision is granted, petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is
denied, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 	CHRU is directed to notify the
Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation to suspend petitioner’s school bus endorsement for the
mandatory six-month period pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29, and to notify petitioner’s employer that he is
ineligible for the period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.*
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 26, 2018
Date of Mailing: 	July 26, 2018
* This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
AGENCY REF. NO. 228-9/17
MOHAMMAD AHAD,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW UNIT and
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondents.
_________________________________________
Gary R. Matano, Esq., for Petitioner
James 	M. 	Esposito, 	Deputy 	Attorney 	General, 	for 	Respondent 	(Gurbir 	S.
Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorneys)
Robert E. Murray, Esq. for Respondent State-Operated School District of the
City of Paterson, Passaic County
Record Closed: June 14, 2018 	Decided: June 28, 2018
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner challenges the suspension of his “S” endorsement on his driver’s
license.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on December 12, 2017, as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
A prehearing conference was held on January 29, 2018, and a prehearing order
was entered on February 2, 2018.
Respondent, State-Operated School District of the City of Paterson, filed a
motion to dismiss petitioner’s appeal for failure to supply discovery. 	Said motion was
filed on April 13, 2018. 	Petitioner filed a response thereto on April 22, 2018. 	Said
motion 	was 	held 	in 	abeyance 	pending the 	outcome 	of 	a 	subsequent motion for
summary decision filed by respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal
History Review Unit (CHRU).
Respondent, New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal History Review
Unit, filed a motion for summary decision on May 15, 2018. Petitioner filed his response
in opposition to the motion and a cross-motion for summary decision on June 3, 2018.
Respondent, New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit, filed
its sur-reply on June 13, 2018. 	Respondent State-Operated School District of the City
of Paterson filed a letter dated June 4, 2018, in support of respondent’s New Jersey
Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit motion for summary decision.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following FACTS are not in dispute:
1. 	Petitioner is a school bus driver.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
3
2. 	On September 8, 2017, petitioner picked up student B.O. while on his
transportation route.
3. 	Petitioner 	completed 	his 	transportation 	route 	when 	he 	dropped 	off 	the
students at the Dale Avenue School.
4. 	Petitioner did not complete a visual inspection of the bus prior to leaving the
drop off point.
5. 	B.O. was left on the bus.
6. 	A 	school 	administrator, 	after 	discovering 	that 	B.O. 	was 	not 	in 	school,
contacted petitioner and requested he inspect his bus.
7. 	Petitioner, upon inspecting his bus, found B.O. sleeping on the bus.
8. 	Petitioner returned to the school and dropped of B.O.
9. 	B.O. was not left alone on the bus, although petitioner was unaware of her
presence until he inspected the bus at the request of the school administrator.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Standard for Summary Decision
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an application. 	Ibid. 	These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . , are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
4
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
It is not disputed that petitioner is a school bus driver. 	It is also undisputed that
on September 8, 2017, petitioner left a child on his bus after dropping all other students
off at school. There are no issues as to material fact and the matter is ripe for summary
decision.
The School Bus Safety Act
The School Bus Safety Act imposes an affirmative duty on school bus driver to
visually inspect the school bus upon completion of every route to ensure that no child
has been left on the school bus.
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 states in pertinent part:
A school bus driver shall visually inspect the school bus to
which he is assigned at the end of the transportation route to
determine that no pupil has been left on the bus.
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 states part:
In the event that, after notice and opportunity to be heard, a
school bus driver is found to have left a pupil on the school
bus at the end of his route, his school bus endorsement shall
be:
a. suspended for six months, for a first offense; or
b. permanently revoked, for a second offense.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-12.1 states in pertinent part:
(a) Where a school bus driver has been notified by the
Department’s 	Criminal 	History 	Review 	Unit 	that 	a
determination has been made that suspension or revocation,
as the case may be, of the driver’s school bus endorsement
is 	warranted 	pursuant 	to N.J.S.A. 	18A:39-28 et 	seq.,
because a child was left on the school bus to which the
driver was assigned notwithstanding the driver’s obligation to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
5
conduct a visual inspection at the end of the transportation
route to assure that no pupil is left on the bus, the driver may
contest such determination through the filing of a petition of
appeal according to the procedures set forth in N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.
1. 	Such petition shall be filed within 10 business days of
the date of the Department’s written notice to petitioner of
such determination.
2. 	In addition to the service requirements of N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(a) and (j), such petition shall additionally be served
on the Department c/o Manager, Criminal History Review
Unit, New Jersey Department of Education, PO Box 500,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500.
(b) The following aspects of the Department’s determination
may be contested:
1. 	That a pupil was left on the bus at the end of the
driver’s route;
2. 	That the incident in question was the driver’s second
offense;
3. 	That the pupil was harmed as a result of foreseeable
danger; and
4. 	That the driver acted with gross negligence.
It is clear that CHRU has determined that petitioner’s school bus endorsement
should be suspended pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. 	It is also clear that petitioner
appealed that determination as the matter is presently before the undersigned. 	All that
remains to be determined is whether or not petitioner left a student on his bus at the end
of his route. That fact is not in dispute. Accordingly the determination by CHRU should
be affirmed.
There is no assertion by CHRU that this constitutes a second offense, or that
B.O. was harmed, or that petitioner acted with gross negligence.
Petitioner’s asserts that the critical issue is what constitutes “left on the bus.”
Frankly, this assertion is without merit. 	Left on the bus means exactly that. 	B.O. was
not discovered until a school administrator telephoned petitioner to request he do what
he was supposed to do at the end of his route: inspect the bus.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
6
A court’s task in statutory interpretation is to determine and
effectuate the New Jersey Legislature’s intent. 	In carrying
out 	that 	important 	role, 	a 	court 	looks 	first 	to 	the 	plain
language of the statute, seeking further guidance only to the
extent that the Legislature’s intent cannot be derived from
the words that it has chosen. A court will, in that effort, read
the words selected by the Legislature in accordance with
their ordinary meaning, unless the Legislature has used
technical terms, or terms of art, which are construed in
accordance with those meanings.
[See Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, 197 N.J. 543 (2009).]
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	respondent’s, 	New 	Jersey
Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit, motion for summary decision
be granted and that petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision be denied.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. 	Respondent’s, 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education, 	Criminal 	History
Review Unit, motion for summary decision is GRANTED; and,
2. 	Petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is DENIED; and
3. 	Petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	Initial 	Decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
7
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625-0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must
be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
June 28, 2018
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18146-17
8
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Letter brief in opposition to Motion for Summary Decision and in support of
Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision
For Respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit:
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision
Brief in support of Motion for Summary Decision
Certficiation of James M. Esposito, DAG, with Exhibits A and B
Reply brief to Petitioner’s brief
For Respondent State-Operated School District of the City of Paterson:
Letter in support of Respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal
History Review Unit Motion for Summary Decision