Daniella Maniscalco v. Board of Education of the Borough of Merchantville, Camden County, 10/30/2023, (#323-23)

323-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Daniella Maniscalco,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Merchantville,
Camden County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner filed a petition in October 2022 in which she challenged the respondent Board’s actions
relating to the handling of her resignation from employment with the school district. 	The matter was
dismissed on March 13, 2023 after the petitioner failed to appear for a scheduled hearing. Petitioner filed
exceptions/explanations with the Commissioner as to why she failed to appear as scheduled; the matter was
then reinstated and remanded to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in a Final Decision dated
April 10, 2023. 	The 	matter 	was 	subsequently 	scheduled 	for 	an 	in-person 	hearing 	at 	the 	OAL 	on
September 26, 2023.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: prior to the hearing date, petitioner objected to respondent’s exhibit and
witness list, questioning why, among other things, two specific individuals were not being called by the Board
to testify; petitioner did not provide any exhibits or supply a witness list as requested; at the September 26 th
hearing – which was converted to a Zoom format – petitioner refused to move forward because the Board did
not produce the two witnesses that she believed were necessary to develop a full record; petitioner expressed
significant displeasure with the overall handling of the matter, and steadfastly refused to proceed; when asked
if she was thereby withdrawing her complaint, the respondent repeatedly answered “no”, but subsequently
removed herself from the Zoom hearing without comment. The ALJ found that the petitioner’s conduct at the
hearing was obstructive and intentional, and concluded that petitioner had abandoned her request for a
hearing and forfeited her right to further contest the actions of the Board that she had complained about.
Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the petitioner’s appeal with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. The petition was dismissed.
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.

OAL Dkt. No. 03369-23
(EDU 10388-22 on Remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 276-10/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Daniella Maniscalco,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Merchantville, Camden County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.1
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that the petition
must be dismissed due to petitioner’s refusal to move forward with the scheduled hearing.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 Petitioner emailed the Office of Controversies and Disputes on October 19, 2023, alleging that the Administrative
Law Judge improperly handled her case. As this email was received after the deadline for exceptions, it was not
considered.
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
323-23
October 30, 2023
November 1, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03369-23
(ON REMAND EDU 10388-22)
AGENCY DKT. NO. 276-10/22
DANIELLA MANISCALCO,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
BOROUGH OF MERCHANTVILLE,
Respondent.
____________________________________
Daniella Maniscalco, petitioner, pro se
Daniel Long, Esq., for respondent (Wade, Long, Wood & Long, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 26, 2023 	Decided: October 2, 2023
BEFORE TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ:
This matter originated under Docket No. EDU 10388-22 and transmitted to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on November 17, 2022, for a hearing as a contested
case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14f 1 to-13. 	Through this
complaint, the petitioner challenged the Board’s actions related to the handling of her
resignation. The matter was dismissed on March 13, 2023, for failure to appear.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03369-23
2
Petitioner filed exceptions/explanations with the Commissioner of the Department
of Education as to why she failed to appear on the scheduled status calls. 	In a Final
Decision, dated April 10, 2023, the matter was reinstated and remanded to the Office of
Administrative Law, under OAL Docket No. EDU 03369-23, for a hearing. See April 10,
2023, Final Decision.
On June 27, 2023, a prehearing conference call was held at which time the in-
person hearing date of September 26, 2023, was set.1 	See July 6, 2023, Prehearing
Order. Subsequent to the issuance of the Prehearing Order, petitioner sent over a series
of emails objecting to among other things: how the matter was being handled; the options
available to her to resolve the matter; the location of the hearing; and the fact that she
wanted another hearing judge. By letter, dated July 25, 2023, petitioner’s concerns and
questions were addressed. See July 25, 2023, letter.
On September 21, 2023, respondent’s exhibits and witness list were provided to
the petitioner and this Tribunal. 	By email that same date, petitioner objected to
respondent’s exhibit and witness list, questioning why, among other things, two other
individuals, were not being called by the respondent to testify at the hearing. 	Petitioner
did not provide any exhibits or supply a witness list.
On the hearing date, the petitioner refused to go forward with the hearing because
the respondent did not produce the two witnesses that she believed were necessary to
develop a full record. A lengthy colloquy took place both off the record and then on the
record, wherein petitioner expressed her significant displeasure over the handling of the
matter, the fact that no one told her that she herself could have subpoenaed and/or called
the witnesses, how the undersigned was treating her, and the denial of her request for an
adjournment. Throughout all of this, respondent’s counsel stood by ready to proceed with
his witnesses.
1 The hearing date was subsequently converted to a remote hearing, via Zoom. At the time of notice, both
parties were informed that all of the exhibits that they intended to rely upon, needed to be provided one
week in advance of the hearing with a copy to this Tribunal, along with the proposed witness list.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03369-23
3
Petitioner was repeatedly asked if she was ready to proceed with the hearing to
which she would respond that she would only proceed if the two witnesses that she
believed were necessary were brought in by the respondent to testify. When asked if she
was going to withdraw the complaint given the fact that she refused to proceed with the
hearing, she repeatedly stated “no.” 	After this colloquy went on for some time - during
which petitioner became increasingly argumentative, petitioner intentionally removed
herself from the zoom hearing. 	The record remained open for several more minutes;
however, the petitioner did not re-enter the remote hearing.
I FIND that the petitioner’s conduct, her refusal to move forward, and leaving the
virtual hearing, to be intentional and obstructive.
For the above reasons, I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has abandoned her
request for a hearing in this matter and has forfeited her right to further contest the actions
complained about. 	Accordingly, this matter should be dismissed with prejudice for lack
of prosecution and failure to appear.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the petitioner’s appeal be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4, and I DIRECT the Clerk to return the matter to the agency
for appropriate disposition.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03369-23
4
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, PO 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.
October 2, 2023
DATE 	TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TBH/gd/lam