Nicholas Hernandez v. Highland Park Board of Education, Middlesex County, 5/29/26 (#186-26E)

186-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06220-26
Agency Dkt. No. 155-04-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
Nicholas Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
Highland 	Park 	Board 	of 	Education, 	Middlesex
County,
Respondents.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 29, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	May 29, 2026

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER
DENYING EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 155-04/26
NICHOLAS HERNANDEZ
Petitioner,
v.
HIGHLAND PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________
Nicholas Hernandez, petitioner, pro se
Jordan Lambdin, Esq., for respondent (Busch Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 27, 2026 	Decided: April 28, 2026
BEFORE BINDI MERCHANT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner 	seeks 	an 	emergency 	order 	compelling 	respondent 	to 	produce
surveillance footage and an investigation file from an incident where an employee of
respondent distributed rubber gloves to petitioner’s child but has not demonstrated

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
2
irreparable harm. Is petitioner entitled to emergency relief? No. Emergency relief may
only be ordered when irreparable harm will otherwise result. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6(a).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 10, 2026, petitioner filed a petition of appeal and request for emergency
relief with the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Controversies and
Disputes.
On 	April 	20, 	2026, 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education, 	Office 	of
Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the case as a contested case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) 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 April 27, 2026, I heard oral argument on petitioner’s request for emergency
relief and closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the oral arguments and documents presented by the parties, I FIND
the following as FACT for purposes of this application only:
On March 19, 2026, a custodian employed by respondent distributed rubber
gloves to petitioner’s child.
On March 22, 2026, petitioner e-mailed the principal of Irving Primary School,
Ms. Megan McNally and Highland Park Superintendent, Dr. Kristina Susca a request to
access all educational records and to meet regarding the March 19, 2026, incident.
On March 23, 2026, Ms. McNally met with petitioner.
On March 26, 2026, Ms. McNally followed up on her meeting with petitioner and
indicated that the March 19, 2026, incident involved a custodian, during the course of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
3
his duties, in the cafeteria, providing several students with rubber gloves, from a box he
brought in, after the students asked if they could have them. 	Petitioner’s daughter was
among those students, and no harm was experienced by any student who received the
rubber gloves. 	Shortly thereafter, Ms. McNally asked the custodian to refrain from
providing rubber gloves to students in the future. 	Ms. McNally also updated petitioner
with an e-mail stating that the matter was resolved with the custodian. 	Petitioner
responded to Ms. McNally and Dr. Susca with several follow-up questions.
On March 27, 2026, Dr. Susca responded to petitioner stating that a thorough
review of the situation was completed, and that the matter was fully addressed and
there was no further information to provide.
On April 6, 2026, petitioner requested a litigation hold on all records, data, and
communications related to this matter.
On April 7, 2026, petitioner sent another email regarding preservation steps.
On April 8, 2026, petitioner requested the respondent access to inspect the
March 19, 2026, video surveillance of the Irving Primary School cafeteria under the
statutory 10-day window. 	Additionally, petitioner confirmed his arrival at the office at
9am on April 9, 2026. The school secretary coordinated with the main office to facilitate
his review of the video recordings. 	While, the Irving Primary School did not have video
cameras located within the cafeteria, petitioner was invited to observe a recording of
video surveillance capturing the “ingress and egress areas” of the cafeteria.
On April 9, 2026, petitioner met with Angelo Odato, Highland Park IT Technician
to review the video recordings. 	Petitioner agreed not to record the meeting. 	As Mr.
Odato showed petitioner the best view of the hallway outside of the cafeteria, petitioner
became upset. 	The petitioner requested to view the physical cameras outside of the
cafeteria. 	While petitioner attempted to walk though the school, he was stopped and
informed he was not permitted to walk through the school. The parties returned back to
the conference room to resume watching the video recordings. Petitioner requested the
whereabouts of the principal and was advised that she would not be able to meet with

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
4
him. 	Petitioner became upset again after he was told that he had viewed all the
available video surveillance. 	The meeting ended and petitioner was asked to leave the
school voluntarily, otherwise he would be escorted out by police. 	The meeting lasted
approximately twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) minutes.
At some point, within the ordinary course of the district’s video retention system,
the video recording of the ingress and egress areas of the school cafeteria at Irving
Primary School were erased. 	The data retention program installed can retain only a
certain amount of data, therefore, when an appropriate data threshold is met, the
previous data is erased to preserve more recent video surveillance.
At oral argument, petitioner stated that he requested to view video recording of
the cafeteria area from 11am to 1pm and that he was not shown that surveillance.
Respondent argued that the video surveillance observed on April 9, 2026, is what was
available for March 19, 2026, and through no adverse action on the part of the
respondent, it was automatically deleted. Respondent reiterated that there was never
any video surveillance of the cafeteria where the petitioner’s daughter was given rubber
gloves by the custodian. 	Therefore, there is no video recording available to produce to
petitioner. 	Furthermore, petitioner seeks investigative documents, however, none exist.
The principal had an informal discussion with the custodial staff and the custodian who
provided the rubber gloves to the students. The principal asked the custodian to refrain
from providing rubber gloves to any students in the future and the matter was closed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6, an Administrative Law Judge may order emergency
relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case where authorized by law and
where irreparable harm will result without an expedited decision. 	The harm must be
substantial and immediate, Judice’s Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 F.
Supp. 1212, 1218 (D.N.J. 1976), and more than a risk of irreparable harm must be
demonstrated, Cont’l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (D.N.J.
1980).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
5
The purpose of emergent relief is “to ‘prevent some threatening, irreparable
mischief, which should be averted until opportunity is afforded for a full and deliberate
investigation 	of 	the 	case.’” 	Crowe 	v. 	DeGioia, 	90 	N.J. 	126,132 	(1982) 	(quoting
Thompson ex rel. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 625 (E. & A.
1854)). 	It is well settled that injunctive relief should not be granted except “when
necessary to prevent irreparable harm.” Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132.
In this case, petitioner has not demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable harm.
Indeed, the only harm petitioner has specifically identified is that there will be spoilation
of evidence. 	However, respondents do not have any documents or video footage
requested in their possession for there to be a spoilation of evidence. 	Petitioner has
already been given access to review the video footage that existed prior to the
automatic deletion. Petitioner requests all documents pertaining to the March 19, 2026,
investigation, however, respondent states that they do not have any investigative
materials. There was an informal discussion with the custodian to refrain from providing
students 	with 	rubber 	gloves 	and 	that 	concluded 	the 	investigation. 	Therefore, 	I
CONCLUDE that petitioner is not entitled to an expedited decision for emergency relief
and, instead, this case will proceed to a final decision on the whole contested case in
due course.
ORDER
Given my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I ORDER that petitioner’s
request for emergency relief is DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief 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. 	The final decision shall be
issued without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this
order. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of Education, does not adopt, modify or
reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
6
April 28, 2026 	________________________________
DATE 	BINDI MERCHANT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
ke

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06220-26
7
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner
Petition and Motion for Emergent Relief dated April 10, 2026, with exhibits
Reply dated April 24, 2026, to Respondent’s Opposition with exhibits
For Respondent
Opposition dated April 24, 2026, to petitioner’s application with exhibits.