Joan S. Llanos Claros v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 1/29/26 (#34-26)

34-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 1700-24
Agency Dkt. No. 354-11/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Joan S. Llanos Claros,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection,
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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 when he failed to conduct a visual inspection of his school bus at the end of his transportation
route and, as a result, a child remained on board at the end of the route.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of appeal
is dismissed. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a), petitioner’s “S” endorsement shall be suspended for six months
from the date of this decision. Respondent is directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation
to suspend petitioner’s “S” endorsement, and to notify petitioner’s employer that he is ineligible during the
period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 29, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 30, 2026
1 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION MOTION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17100-24
AGENCY REF. NO. 354-11/24
JOAN S. LLANOS CLAROS,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF STUDENT PROTECTION,
Respondent.
Joan S. Llanos Claros, petitioner, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: February 11, 2025 	Decided: December 30, 2025
BEFORE AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 31, 2024, petitioner, Joan S. Llanos Claros (Claros), a school bus
driver, failed to inspect the bus at the end of his route and left a pupil on the bus. Must

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17100-24
2
Claros’s school bus endorsement be suspended? Yes. If a school bus driver fails to
inspect his bus at the end of his route and leaves a pupil on the bus, his school bus
endorsement must be suspended for six months. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 7, 2024, respondent, the New Jersey Department of Education,
Office of Student Protection (OSP), informed Claros that his “S” endorsement to operate
a school bus was suspended. On November 8, 2024, Claros filed a petition of appeal
with the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On
November 25, 2024, the Office of Controversies and Disputes transmitted the case to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case 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.
On November 22, 2024, OSP filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. On
February 11, 2025, petitioner filed his opposition to the motion. Respondent did not file
a reply.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the papers the parties submitted in support of and in opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and accepting as true the facts alleged in the petition, and providing
every inference to Claros, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
1. On October 31, 2024, Claros was a school bus driver for Aldin Transportation,
which serves the Paterson School District.
2. On that date, Claros failed to conduct a visual inspection of the bus at the end
of his route and left a pupil on the bus, which he admits in its petition
3. This is Claros’s first offense.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17100-24
3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard on Motion to Dismiss
In considering a motion to dismiss brought by a respondent, the court must accept
as true the facts alleged in the complaint, with liberality and provide every inference to the
plaintiffs. Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 625–26 (1995) (citations
omitted); see also Maeker v. Ross, 219 N.J. 565, 569 (2014). In reviewing the complaint,
the question is not whether the petitioner can prove the allegations but whether a cause
of action may be “gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim.” Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). Specifically, the required test
is “whether a cause of action is suggested by the facts.” Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive
Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988) (citations omitted).
The test for determining the adequacy of whether a cause of action is suggested
by the facts is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of
the complaint. Printing-Mart Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989).
It does not matter whether a petitioner can prove the allegations contained in the
complaint because the facts alleged in the complaint and the legitimate inferences drawn
therefrom are deemed admitted. Ibid. (citing Somers Constr. Co. v. S. Gloucester Cnty.
Reg’l High Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 732, 734 (D.N.J.1961)); Smith v. City of
Newark, 136 N.J. Super. 107, 112 (App. Div. 1975) (citing Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63
N.J. 130, 133 (1973); J.H. Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Twp., 82 N.J. Super. 519, 524 (App.
Div. 1964)). A complaint should not be dismissed if a cause of action can be suggested
by the facts, but a dismissal is mandated if the factual allegations are palpably insufficient
to support a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rieder v. Dep’t of Transp., 221 N.J.
Super. 547, 552 (App. Div. 1987).
Respondent argues that under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10, the Commissioner of Education
may dismiss a petition of appeal if it fails to advance a cause of action, even if petitioner’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17100-24
4
factual allegations are accepted as true. However, this case is more appropriate for
summary decision. 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.”
Standard for Inspection of Bus
The law imposes an affirmative obligation on school bus drivers to inspect their
buses at the end of every route to ensure that no child remains on the school bus.
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. If 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 must be suspended or terminated.
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29. For a first offense, a school bus endorsement must be suspended
for six months. Ibid.
In this case, on October 31, 2024, Claros failed to inspect the school bus at the
end of his route and left a pupil on the bus. Claros admits this in his petition. Claros
admits that he failed to conduct the visual inspection at the end of the transportation route
and left a pupil on the bus. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that Claros’s school bus
endorsement must be suspended for six months.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that respondent's
motion for summary decision is GRANTED and that this case is DISMISSED.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17100-24
5
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. 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 30, 2025
DATE 	AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	12/30/25
Date Mailed to Parties: 	12/30/25
id