M.I., on behalf of minor children, A.D. and P.P. v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 8/5/2022, (#188-22)

188-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.I., on behalf of minor children, A.D. and P.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner filed a pro se petition challenging the determination of the respondent Board of Education of
the City of Elizabeth (Board) that her minor children, A.D. and P.P., were ineligible to receive a free
public education in respondent’s schools. Petitioner asserted that she and her children do, in fact, live
at the Elizabeth address provided when the children were enrolled and that she had provided proof of
her residence as required by the Board. The Board has subsequently determined that the children are
eligible to attend Elizabeth schools, and withdrew its claim for tuition. Petitioner has not, however,
withdrawn her appeal in this matter.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the children are attending Elizabeth Public Schools free of charge; the
District has formally withdrawn its counterclaim for tuition; and there is no further matter in
controversy. The petitioner has already achieved the relief she sought in her appeal. The ALJ
determined that the matter is moot and, accordingly, granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the
petition, with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. Acordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition was
dismissed with prejudice.
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. EDU 05322-21
Agency Dkt. No. 71-5/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.I., on behalf of minor children,
A.D. and P.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
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 the review of the record, the Commissioner is in accord with the ALJ’s conclusion - for
the reasons set forth in the Initial Decision – that the issues raised by the petitioner are moot.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed as moot, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
188-22
August 5, 2022
August 5, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05322-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. # 71-5/21
M.I. O/B/O MINOR CHILDREN A.D. AND P.P.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
M.I., Petitioner, pro se (no appearance)
Brian J. Kane, Esq., (La Corte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella) for Respondent
Record Closed: June 22, 2022 	Decided: June 28, 2022
BEFORE DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
M.I., Petitioner, filed a petition challenging the determination of Respondent
Elizabeth Board of Education that Petitioner and her family do not reside in the Elizabeth
New Jersey School District (District). M.I. maintained throughout that she did, in fact, live
in Elizabeth, New Jersey at the listed address. M.I. wrote in her Pro Se Residency Appeal
that she had provided proof of same. 	In response, on June 18, 2021, the Respondent

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05322-21
2
filed an Answer and Counterclaim and while the attorney of record initially had difficulties
communicating with Petitioner, Ms. DiPalo did, in fact, write to me to state that M.I.
provided sufficient proof of her Elizabeth Residency and the District determined that it
would permit her children to re-enroll as students. 	The students are currently enrolled
and the District has withdrawn its counterclaim for any reimbursement. 	I take Judicial
Notice that M.I. has been on multiple phone calls both in English and in Spanish and was
thinking of withdrawing her case but never did. We sought a response as did the District
for months but never received one. I finally listed the case for a hearing on June 22, 2022
where she was properly noticed and failed to appear. The argument to dismiss the case
due to mootness was heard in M.I.’s absence.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As the District properly argues, mootness is a threshold justiciability determination
rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately
threated with harm. Jackson v. Dep’t of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div. 2000).
“A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved at least
concerning the parties who initiated the litigation.” DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428
(1993). Courts normally will not decide issues when a controversy no longer exists, and
the disputed issues have become moot. Id.
An action is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the
issues raised have become academic. For reasons of judicial economy and restraint it is
appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue presented is hypothetical,
judgment cannot grant effective relief, or the parties do not have a concrete adversity of
interest. 	Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976); Fox v. Twp. of E.
Brunswick Bd. of Educ., EDU 10067-98, Initial Decision (March 19, 1999), aff’d, Comm’r
(May 3, 1999) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>; S.J. v. Bd. of Educ. of
Mountain Lakes, EDU 07081-03, Initial Decision (October 7, 2003), aff’d, Comm’r (Nov.
17, 2003), aff’d, St. Bd. (Feb. 3, 2004) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05322-21
3
When a decision being sought in a particular matter will have no practical effect
on the existing controversy, it is considered moot. A matter becomes moot when an
issue becomes hypothetical in nature, a judgment cannot grant effective relief, or the
parties do not have concrete adversity of interest. Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super.,
432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976).
“Therefore, when there has been a change in circumstances that raises doubt
concerning the immediacy of the controversy, courts will ordinarily dismiss cases as moot,
regardless of the state to which litigation has progressed.” Id. at 437.
In the instant matter, I FIND as it is undisputed that M.I. lives in Elizabeth and that
both her children do as well and that she provided proof of same. 	I also FIND that they
are currently enrolled in the Elizabeth School District. I FURTHER FIND that The District
has withdrawn its counterclaim as a result of our hearing/motion on June 22. 2022.
Again, it is undisputed and I am taking judicial notice of the District’s description of
M.I. being unresponsive an uncooperative even when the District was explaining that her
residency was no longer in dispute as I was present on some of those calls and my
assistant copied on some of that correspondence. It bears mentioning that my assistant
speaks both English and Spanish and has communicated many times with M.I. in both
languages, and thus I so FIND. As the District has formally withdrawn their counterclaim
and the children are attending Elizabeth Public Schools and there are no legal fees at
issue, I FIND that there is no matter in controversy that this court can decide or relief that
the court can grant and thus the issues are moot. In short, I FIND that the Petitioner has
already achieved the relief she sought in her appeal.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the petition is moot because M.I.’s showed the proof
of residency, it is undisputed that she and her children live and are currently enrolled in
the District and the District has withdrawn its counterclaim. 	As such there is nothing for
this court to decide has the Petitioner has already received the relief she sought in her
appeal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05322-21
4
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on
behalf of mootness is GRANTED. I ORDER that the DISMISSAL IS WITH PREJUDICE
based on mootness and later Petitioner’s failure to appear and/or pursue an action.
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.
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.
June 28, 2022
DATE 	DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 28, 2022
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	June 28, 2022
lr