J.K., on behalf of minor child, K.K. v. Board of Education of the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, Morris County, 2/26/26 (#69-26R)

69-26R
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03654025
Agency Dkt. No. 28-1/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.K., on behalf of minor child, K.K.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Parsippany-Troy Hills, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by respondent Board of Education (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and
petitioner’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
This matter concerns petitioner’s request for aid in lieu of transportation for the 2024-
2025 school year. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1 provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen any school district
provides any transportation for public school pupils to and from school pursuant to this section,
transportation shall be supplied to school pupils residing in such school district in going to and
from any remote school other than a public school . . . located within the State not more than 20
miles from the residence of the pupil.” However, if the Board would have to establish a new
route for such transportation, then “in lieu thereof” the parent or guardian shall be eligible for
financial aid in lieu of transportation calculated per the statute’s requirements. Ibid.

2
At the heart of this dispute is whether the private school K.K. attends is located not more
than 20 miles from her residence in Parsippany. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii) provides that, for
purposes of determining eligibility for student transportation, “[d]istance shall be measured
using the shortest route along public roadways or public walkways between the entrance of the
student’s residence nearest the public roadway and public walkway and the nearest public
entrance of the school the student attends.”
The Board contends that K.K. resides more than 20 miles from her school and,
consequently, denied petitioner’s request for aid in lieu of transportation. Per Board policy, it
initially calculated the walking distance between the residence and the school using Google Maps
and determined that it was between 21 and 24.7 miles.
Petitioner relies upon a Google Maps printout and a survey which he provided to the
Board. 	The Google Maps printout states that the distance between the residence and K.K.’s
school is 19.9 miles, while the survey states that the distance between the residence and K.K.’s
school is 19.7 miles.
As part of its opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary decision, the Board supplied
a certification from its transportation supervisor indicating that she personally drove along the
Google Maps route provided by petitioner and that it was longer than 20 miles. The Board also
attempted to measure driving distance using Google Maps, which produced three routes all over
20 miles, and could not recreate petitioner’s Google Maps printout.
The ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision based upon a finding that the
survey, consistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii), “measures the shortest
distance utilizing public roadways and walkways [between] the student’s home and the nearest

3
public entrance to the school.” Initial Decision at 3. The ALJ further found that because “the
Board did not consider public roadways,” its “method of measurement is not entitled to
deference.” Id. at 6. Ultimately, because the survey indicated the distance was under 20 miles,
the ALJ concluded that petitioner was entitled to aid in lieu of transportation from the Board.
Additionally, the ALJ rejected the Board’s claim that the petition was untimely filed.
In its exceptions, the Board argues: (1) there is a genuine issue of material fact relative to
the accuracy of petitioner’s Google Maps printout and survey as the Board was unable to
substantiate that the distance at issue was under 20 miles; (2) the ALJ’s determination that the
Board failed to consider public roadways is not supported by the record; (3) the ALJ did not apply
the correct standard of review and substituted his judgment for the Board’s; and (4) the ALJ
should have determined that the petition was time-barred.
In response, petitioner argues that: (1) summary decision was appropriate because the
undisputed facts establish that the shortest route between the residence and K.K.’s school along
public roadways is under 20 miles; (2) the Board’s methods of calculating the route did not
comport with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii); (3) the ALJ correctly applied the
law and the decision is supported by the record; and (4) the petition was timely filed within 90
days of the November 4, 2024, final decision of the Board.
Upon review, the Commissioner is constrained to remand the matter to the OAL for
further proceedings. At the outset, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the petition was
timely filed; the ALJ properly rejected the Board’s argument that its final decision was issued in
August 2024 and not November 2024. However, a remand is warranted because this matter is
not ripe for summary decision. It is clear from the record before the Commissioner that a genuine

4
issue of material fact exists regarding the measurement of the shortest distance between the
residence and K.K.’s school, consistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii).
Summary decision “may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been filed,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-
12.5(b); In re Young, 471 N.J. Super. 169, 177 (App. Div. 2022). 	“If there exists a single,
unavoidable resolution of the alleged disputed issue of fact, that issue should be considered
insufficient to constitute a ‘genuine’ issue of material fact . . . .” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
The Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ that petitioner’s survey provides a single,
unavoidable resolution of the alleged disputed issue of fact—in this case, measurement of the
shortest distance between the residence and K.K.’s school, consistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:27-
1.3(a)(1)(ii). For instance, without testimony or an explanatory certification from the surveyor,
it cannot be determined whether the survey began at the entrance to the residence (as opposed
to curbside) and ended at the nearest public entrance to the school in accordance N.J.A.C. 6A:27-
1.3(a)(1)(ii). The same is true regarding the competing Google Maps documents relied upon by
both parties.
Case law instructs that these details are necessary for proper determination of the
shortest distance between the residence and the school. See, e.g., Nelson v. Bd. of Educ. of Glen
Ridge, 246 N.J. Super. 467, 470-72 (App. Div. 1991) (holding that driveways from public roadways
to entrances must be included in measuring the distance between the pupil’s residence and
school). It cannot be determined from the limited information in the record whether the survey

5
upon which the ALJ relied accurately measured the shortest distance between the residence and
the school consistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii) and controlling case
law. Thus, the ALJ’s reliance on the survey as the single, unavoidable resolution of the disputed
factual issue regarding the distance measurement is not adequately supported by the record.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the OAL for further proceedings consistent with
this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 26, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	February 26, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 28-1/25
J.K., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, K.K.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY
HILLS, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
John D. Coyle, Esq., petitioner (Coyle Law Group, attorneys.)
Allison L. Kenny, Esq. for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 2, 2025 	Decided: December 8, 2025
BEFORE: AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, J.K., father of K.K., lives within 20 miles from her school. Is J.K. entitled
to aid in lieu of transportation? Yes. Students who live within 20 miles from a non-public,
remote school are entitled to aid in lieu of transportation. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 1, 2024, respondent, Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of
Education (Board), sent J.K. a letter informing him that his daughter was being denied aid
in lieu of transportation due to living more than 20 miles from home to school. 	On
September 6, 2024, J.K. sent a printout from Google Maps challenging the distance
calculation by the Board. The printout states that petitioner lives19.9 miles from home to
school.
On October 1, 2024, J.K. sent a survey from a New Jersey licensed surveyor,
Brevard Surveying & Mapping, LLC, to the Board.
On November 4, 2024, the Board sent a final decision denying aid in lieu of
transportation.
On January 31, 2025, J.K. appealed the Board’s decision to Department of
Education.
On February 24, 2025 the Department of Education transmitted the appeal to the
Office of Administrative Law as a contested matter under the Administrative Procedure
Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -
23, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to
-21.6.
On March 26, 2025, and April 29, 2025, the parties participated in prehearing
teleconferences.
On June 3, 2025, petitioner filed his motion for summary decision. On June 23,
2025, the Board filed its opposition and cross-motion for summary decision. On July 2,
2025, petitioner filed his response.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion
for summary decision, and when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
1. 	Petitioner, J.K., has a daughter named, K.K., and they reside in Parsippany,
New Jersey.
2. 	K.K. attends Eastern Christian Upper Elementary & Middle School located at
518 Sicomac Avenue, Wyckoff, NJ 07481.
3. 	K.K. lives more than two miles away from Eastern Christian Upper Elementary
& Middle School.
4. 	On August 1, 2024, Tiffany Pizza-Hiltz sent a letter to J.K. stating that aid in lieu
of transportation was denied.
5. 	A Google Maps printout to the Board shows a distance of 19.9 miles from home
to school.
6. 	A survey by licensed surveyor Brevard Surveying & Mapping, LLC, shows a
distance of 19.7 miles. 	This survey measures the shortest distance utilizing
public roadways and walkways the student’s home and the nearest public
entrance to the school.
7. 	A Google Maps printout using walking distance only shows that the distance
between home and school is 21-24.7 miles.
8. 	On November 4, 2024, Board attorney, Katharine Gilfillan sent a letter to J.K.
stating the Board’s final decision to deny aid in lieu of transportation.
9. 	Tiffany Pizza-Hiltz, respondent’s transportation supervisor, certifies that the
driving distance between petitioner’s home and school is greater than 20 miles.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary Decision Standard
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision must be served
with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. 	Under N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b),
“[t]he decision sought may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been filed,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary judgment, 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 demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). 	To avoid entry of summary
judgment, the non-moving party must come forward with legally competent facts essential
to proving an element of its cause of action. Ibid. at 536-537. If non-movant fails to do
so, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Ibid.
Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision
Students who live within 20 miles from a non-public, remote school are entitled to
aid in lieu of transportation. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1. 	In this case, J.K. has provided both a
Google Maps printout showing a distance from home to Eastern Christian Upper
Elementary & Middle School of 19.9 miles. 	J.K. also provided a survey conducted by
licensed surveyor Brevard Surveying & Mapping, LLC, showing a distance of 19.7 miles.
The Board, on the other hand, has provided a Google Maps printout exclusively
using walking distance that reflects 21 to 24.7 miles between J.K.’s home and Eastern
Christian Upper Elementary & Middle School. The Board also provided a certification from

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
5
Transportation Supervisor Tiffany Pizza-Hiltz stating that she attempted to drive the
Google Maps route provided by petitioner and that it measured over 20 miles.
The dispute between the parties is over how that distance was measured.
Petitioner argues that Route 80 cannot be traversed by foot and that failing to utilize Route
80 lengthens the walk. The Board cites Parsippany-Troy Hills Township’s Parent Guide
to Transportation as to policy on the exclusive use of Google Maps walking distance.
Fortunately, a regulation, N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii), provides guidance about
how to calculate such distances: “[D]istance shall be measured using the shortest route
along public roadways or public walkways between the entrance of the student’s
residence nearest the public roadway or public walkway and the nearest public entrance
of the school the student attends.” Since the distance between petitioner’s residence and
the nearest public entrance to the school must be measured using the shortest route
accessing the nearest public roadways or public walkways under N.J.A.C. 6A:27-
1.3(a)(1)(ii), and the licensed surveyor’s distance calculation, which uses public roadways
and public walkways, is 19.7 miles, that it is the distance from home to school for purposes
of transportation in this case. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioner is entitled to aid in
lieu of transportation under N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.
Respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision
In their cross-motion for summary decision, the Board claims that J.K’s petition is
time-barred. The regulation concerning appeals is N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). The regulation
states that petitioners must file their petitions no later than the 90th date from the date of
final action by a board:
Filing and service of petition of appeal - The petitioner shall
file a petition no later than the 90th day from the date of receipt
of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the
district board of education, individual party, or agency, that is
the subject of the requested contested case hearing. This rule
shall 	not 	apply 	in 	instances 	where 	a 	specific 	statute,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
6
regulation, or court order provides for a period of limitation
shorter than 90 days for the filing of a particular type of appeal.
The Board argues that the August 1, 2024, letter from Pizza-Hilitz to J.K.
constituted the Board’s final decision on aid in lieu of transportation for J.K.’s daughter
K.K. 	However, this argument is belied by the language in the November 4, 2024 letter
from Board attorney Gilfillan to J.K. in which states, “this matter has been considered by
the Superintendent and this decision is the District’s final decision..” 	Therefore, I
CONCLUDE that that District’s final decision was rendered on November 4, 2024, and
that J.K. filed the appeal with the Commissioner of Education on January 31, 2025, which
is before the expiration of 90 days.
The Board’s citation of an unpublished Appellate Division decision regarding the
strict construction of the 90-day rule and a district’s adoption of a student uniform policy
in Coles v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., No. A- 4642-06T1, 2008, N.J. Super. Unpub. is
inapplicable and unpersuasive because in that case, the appellants did not offer a
reasonable excuse for their delay. In this case, there was no such delay. Thus, the case
is inapposite.
The Board’s assertion that its method of measurement is entitled to deference is
also 	inapposite. 	This 	method 	of 	measurement, 	Google 	Maps 	walking 	distance,
contravenes the express language of the controlling New Jersey Administrative Code
section. 	Under N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii), “distance shall be measured using the
shortest route along public roadways or public walkways between the entrance of the
student’s residence nearest the public roadway or public walkway and the nearest public
entrance of the school the student attends.” The Board must consider the shortest route
using both public roadways and walkways. 	That is not a matter left to the discretion of
the Board. 	Since the Board did not consider public roadways, the Board’s method of
measurement is not entitled to deference.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03654-25
7
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, J.K’s motion for summary
decision is GRANTED, and the Board’s cross-motion for summary decision is DENIED.
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 case. 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 becomes 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. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
December 8, 2025
DATE 	AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	12/8/25
Date Mailed to Parties: 	12/8/25
id