Calvin Abramowitz v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 5/19/2022, (#101-22)

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

101-22

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08737-21
Agency Dkt. No. 131-9/21

New J ersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Calvin Abramowitz,
Petitioner,
V.

New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,

Respondent.

The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.

Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge’s
determination that the Board of Examiners’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter for the reasons expressed
therein, and the petition is hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. !

x Gli Mian J.

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

Date of Decision: May 19, 2022
Date of Mailing: May 19, 2022

! This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to NJ.SA. 18A:6-9.1.
Under NJ .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.

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08737-21
CALVIN ABRAMOWITZ, AGENCY DKT. NO. 131-9/21
Petitioner,
V.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.

Calvin Abramowitz, petitioner, pro se

Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting

Attorney General of New Jersey, attomey)

Record Closed: April 6, 2022 Decided: April 14, 2022

BEFORE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Calvin Abramowitz (petitioner) challenges the denial of his application for a

supplemental instruction in reading and mathematics (K-8) Certificate of Eligibility by the State

Board of Examiners (the Examiners). The Examiners reply that petitioner failed to meet the

regulatory requirements for issuance of this certificate set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3. The

reasons for the denial were that he lacked the requisite cumulative grade point average (GPA)

requirements in the regulations. Under the applicable regulations, the petitioner needed a

New Jersey is an Equa! Opportunity Employer

OAL DKT, NO. EDU 08737-21

cumulative GPA of at least 2.75. The petitioner's GPA was 2.35, and thus the application was
denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed a petition of appeal with the Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner)
on August 30, 2021. A Motion to Dismiss, in lieu of an Answer, was filed by the Examiners, and
the contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on October 19, 2021.
The petitioner filed opposition to the motion and several conference calls were conducted with the

parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Examiners’ Motion is filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g), which
permits the filing of a Motion to Dismiss, in lieu of an Answer. In ruling on a Motion to
Dismiss:

[t]he judge considers whether all the evidence together with
all legitimate inferences therefrom could sustain a judgment
in favor of the party opposing the motion. The judge is not
concerned with weight, worth, nature or extent of the
evidence. The judge must accept alt the evidence supporting
the party defending against the motion and accord that party
the benefit of all inferences that can reasonably and
legitimately be deduced therefrom. If reasonable minds could
differ, the motion must be denied.

[37 New Jersey Practice, Administrative Law and Practice §
5.19, at 259-60 (Steven Lefelt, Anthony Miragliotta & Patricia
Prunty) (2d ed. 2000).]

Accordingly, for purposes of the Motion, the facts alleged by the petition will be deemed
admitted. | FIND as follows:

1. The petitioner applied for a supplemental instruction in reading and mathematics
(K-8) Certificate of Eligibility.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08737-21

2. Petitioner submitted a transcript from Yeshiva University demonstrating a
bachelor’s degree with a grade-point average of 2.35.

3. The degree included courses from other institutions for which he had obtained
credits with a pass/fail grade. Accordingly, no GPA is attributed to pass classes
and they were accorded no weight in the GPA calculation.

4. The petitioner's overall GPA fails to meet the requirement of the regulations for
Certification for Supplemental Instruction in Reading and Mathematics (K-8).

The above facts are not in dispute and are FOUND as FACT.

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The issue presented by this appeal is “whether the decision [by the Examiners to
deny Abramowitz’s application is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions.” Walder v. State Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08530-14, Initial Decision
(November 10, 2014), affd with mod. Comm'r (December 29, 2014),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. Abramowitz carries the burden of demonstrating

by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he is entitled to the certification he
seeks. Farrar v. State Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13763-08, Initial Decision (April
27, 2010), affd, Comm’r (July 26, 2010), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. |
CONCLUDE that the Examiners’ decision was consistent with applicable law and thus,

must be upheld.

The petitioner does not meet the GPA requirements of the regulations and
petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board’s
decision was not consistent with the applicable law. The petitioner's argument that he
should be able to pick and choose which courses are used in calculating his GPA has no
legal foundation. Accordingly, i CONCLUDE that the Board’s Motion to Dismiss is
granted, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08737-21

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Board of Examiners’
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the petition of appeal is DISMISSED.

| 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.

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.

April 14, 2022 Pe eC Cal

DATE SARAH G. crowLey 4.)
Date Received at Agency: April 14, 2022
Date Mailed to Parties: April 14, 2022

SsGC/sm

a