S.S., on behalf of minor child, T.S. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Woodcliff Lake, Bergen County, 11/17/25 (#528-25)

528-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 12063-24
Agency Dkt. No. 243-7/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
S.S., on behalf of minor child, T.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Woodcliff
Lake, Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Woodcliff Lake Board of
Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner appealed the Board’s determination that his child, T.S., committed an act of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) when he called another student “autistic.” 	The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that T.S.’s conduct met the statutory criteria for an act
of HIB and that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that there are disputed issues of material fact that
require a hearing, including whether T.S. actually used the word “autistic,” whether the victim’s
crying occurred before or after the alleged comment, and whether T.S.’s statements were
misheard, misinterpreted, or coerced by a school official. According to petitioner, the witness
statements are contradictory and there is no firsthand confirmation of key facts, but only

2
hearsay. Petitioner also contends that the ALJ ignored several procedural violations, both during
the investigation itself and in the Board’s review of and hearing regarding the investigation.
Finally, according to petitioner, T.S.’s conduct does not meet the statutory criteria for an act of
HIB.
In response, the Board argues that there are no disputed issues of material fact, as
multiple witnesses heard T.S. call the victim “dumb” and/or “autistic” and that T.S. admitted to
calling the victim “dumb.” The Board contends that the ALJ appropriately looked at the record
developed in the HIB investigation to determine whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, and correctly concluded that it was not. Finally, the Board argues
that petitioner provided no evidence to support his claims of procedural violations and, even if
such violations occurred, they do not provide a basis to overturn the Board’s decision.1
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner failed to satisfy his
heavy burden of demonstrating that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably
when it determined that T.S. committed an act of HIB. When a local board of education acts
within its discretionary authority, its decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will
not be disturbed unless there is an affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary,
without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Orange, 60
N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action
1 The Board also contends that the petition of appeal did not list reversal of the Board’s decision as one of
the forms of relief petitioner was seeking. While the Board is technically correct, the Commissioner finds
that it is appropriate to afford petitioner some leeway as a pro se petitioner and, because the complete
context of the petition demonstrates that petitioner is appealing the Board’s decision and the proceedings
at the OAL addressed that issue, it is also appropriate to address herein whether the Board’s decision
should be reversed.

3
is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration[,]” and the
Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage Co. v.
Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div.
1974). Regarding HIB determinations, this standard has been explained as requiring a petitioner
to “demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances
before it.” G.H. and E.H. o/b/o K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Franklin Lakes, Bergen Cty., EDU
13204-13 (Initial Decision Feb. 24, 2014), adopted Commissioner Decision No. 157-14 (Apr. 10,
2014).
Here, the Commissioner finds that the record contains substantial credible evidence
providing a reasonable basis to support the Board’s HIB determination. Substantial evidence has
been defined as “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961) (quoting In re Hackensack
Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956)). The term has also been defined as “evidence
furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency’s action.” McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002).
The record reflects that the district’s Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS) conducted an
investigation of the HIB allegation that included both T.S.’s version of events and the victim’s.
The ABS also interviewed several student witnesses, one of whom stated that he heard T.S. call
the victim autistic, and another of whom stated that T.S. called the victim “dumb.”2 T.S. admitted
to the ABS that he called the victim “dumb,” which he later confirmed in a written statement
submitted by his parents to the Board during the hearing process. Additionally, while T.S. denied
2 A third student witness reported that T.S. and the victim were not talking nicely to each other.

4
to the ABS that he called the victim “autistic,” during a conversation with a teacher immediately
following the incident, T.S. did not deny that he called the victim “autistic,” and instead said, “I
said it because [the victim] said something mean first.” After reviewing all of the evidence, the
ABS concluded that it supported a finding of HIB, as did the Board. Even crediting T.S.’s later
denial in his written statement that he called the victim “autistic,” there is no dispute that he
called the victim “dumb,” a comment that is sufficient on its own to support the Board’s finding
of HIB. As to calling the victim “autistic,” while the evidence could leave room for two opinions
as to whether this comment occurred, that is an insufficient reason for the Commissioner to
overturn the Board’s decision. 	Petitioner has not shown that the Board’s determination was
arbitrary, without rational basis, or induced by improper motives. 	Nor has petitioner
demonstrated that the Board acted in bad faith or in utter disregard of the circumstances before
it.
The Commissioner is also in accord with the ALJ’s determination that all requisite
elements of the statutory definition of HIB, codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, were satisfied in this
case. 	In sum, a finding of HIB requires three elements under the Act. First, the conduct must
be reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic expressly
identified in the statute, or by any other distinguishing characteristic. Second, the conduct must
substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the
school. 	Third, one of the three conditions set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) must be
satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex Cnty., Commissioner Decision No.
510-20 (Feb. 4, 2020). 	Contrary to petitioner’s argument, these issues do not require an
evidentiary hearing to resolve. T.S. admitted to using the term “dumb” during an argument with

5
the victim. 	In light of this undisputed fact, the Commissioner finds that it was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable to find that the victim reasonably perceived T.S.’s comments as being
motivated by a perceived disability, that the comments substantially interfered with the victim’s
rights, and that the comments were demeaning and had the effect of causing emotional harm.
Nor is the lack of signed witness statements a procedural violation. The Act “does not
define acceptable sources of information regarding HIB allegations, nor does the Act contain any
requirements related to hearsay or corroboration.” 	L.K. and T.K. o/b/o A.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of
Mansfield, Burlington Co., Commissioner Decision No. 318-21 (Dec. 9, 2021); aff’d, 2023 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1788 (App. Div. Oct. 17, 2023). 	Regarding other alleged procedural
violations, the Commissioner finds that petitioner’s concerns related to the conduct of the
Board’s HIB hearing, even if true, do not warrant overturning the Board’s decision, nor do minor
discrepancies regarding the facts as reported by various witnesses. Finally, petitioner provides
no evidence to support his contention that T.S. was “coerced” or “intimidated.”
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 17, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	November 17, 2025
3 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 243-7/24
S.S. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD T.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH
OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
S.S., petitioner, pro se
Robert D. Lorfink, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty, Hara, LaPira & Cherry, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: September 12, 2025 	Decided: October 2, 2025
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner’s son was accused of being intentionally verbally abusive to another
student based on his intellectual and developmental characteristics, causing him to cry.
Respondent investigated the incident and concluded that there was an incident of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
2
harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act,
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (ABBRA). Should the respondent’s findings be overturned?
No. A school board acting within the scope of its authority is “entitled to a presumption of
correctness unless it’s arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.” 	Thomas v. Bd. of Educ.,
89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 29, 2024, petitioner S.S., on behalf of minor child T.S., filed a petition of
appeal with the Commissioner of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. 	On
August 16, 2024, respondent filed its answer. 	On August 19, 2024, the case was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case under N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
A prehearing conference was scheduled for September 18, 2024. On September
17, 2024, an attorney made an appearance on behalf of petitioner, and an adjournment
of the prehearing conference was granted. 	A second prehearing conference was
scheduled for October 17, 2024, and the attorney did not appear. On October 22, 2024,
I held a prehearing conference; petitioner confirmed he was proceeding pro se, and I
entered an order outlining the deadlines for discovery and motions for summary decision.
On January 31, 2025, respondent filed a motion for summary decision. 	Petitioner
requested and was granted an extension of time to file his opposition.
On March 14, 2025, petitioner filed a Motion to Compel the name and contact
information for a student attending Woodcliff Lake Elementary School. 	On March 26,
2025, I entered an order denying the petitioner’s Motion to Compel as protected
information under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA).
On February 18, 2025, petitioner propounded interrogatories and document
requests to respondent. 	On April 8, 2025, respondent issued written objections to
petitioner’s discovery. 	On April 16, 2025, I entered an order sustaining respondent’s
objection to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 9 and 10, and ordering respondent to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
3
provide 	answers 	to 	the 	remaining 	interrogatories. 	I 	also 	sustained 	respondent’s
objections to documents 9 and 10 and requests numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
and 13 and ordered the respondent to provide responses to the remaining document
requests.
On June 3, 2025, I held a status conference and entered an order outlining the
deadlines for petitioner’s opposition to the respondent’s motion for summary decision and
respondent’s reply. 	On August 25, 2025, petitioner filed his opposition. 	On September
12, 2025, respondent filed its reply, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
Woodcliff Lake Board of Education is the public school district for the Borough of
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. 	It operates an elementary school and a middle school.
High school students attend Pascack Hills High School. It enacted District Policy 5512,
Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (R-F), in 2003 to comply with the New Jersey Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq.
At the time of the alleged incident, T.S. was a student at Dorchester Elementary
School in Woodcliff Lake.
On March 1, 2024, Isabella Zigman, a teacher’s aide, filed a Written Report of
Alleged HIB Incident (R-A), alleging that during gym class, T.S. called another student,
the victim, “autistic.” The student began to cry.
On March 1, 2024, Stefanie Marsich, the anti-bullying specialist, telephoned the
parent of the victim, providing the details of the alleged incident and the HIB process. The
parent of the victim stated that his child was not autistic, that there is a lot of misbehaving
in the fifth grade, and that there is a student who curses in another language. 	Marsich
also spoke with the victim. The victim stated that he was on the basketball drill team in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
4
PE class with T.S. and two other witnesses, Witness 3 and Witness 4. T.S. and Witness
3 told the victim that they did not “need a particular supply,” and the victim told T.S. that
“not everyone plays competitive basketball.” T.S. then told the victim that he was “weird”
and “autistic,” causing the victim to cry. The victim told Marsich that that was the moment
that he “broke.” 	The victim told Marsich that he and T.S. usually got along fine, that he
had not heard T.S. speak like that before or say such things to others and that it would
be helpful if T.S. apologized.
Marsich also spoke with T.S. 	T.S. told her he played competitive basketball
outside of school. 	T.S. had missed a basketball shot, and the victim asked T.S. if he
played competitive basketball. 	T.S. said that he did, and the victim replied that his
expectations in basketball are not as high as T.S.’s and that he was better than T.S. T.S.
told Marsich that he told the victim to “shut up” and “stop talking.” T.S. denied calling the
victim autistic. T.S. was reminded that he had told Kyle Westervelt that he did not deny
calling the victim “autistic.” T.S. told Marsich that he said the victim was “dumb,” that the
victim told T.S. that he was “autistic,” and that T.S. said that he did not know he was
“autistic.” 	T.S. stated that he only admitted to calling the victim “autistic” because the
victim kept bugging him.
Marsich spoke with Zigman. 	Zigman stated that as she was walking out of PE,
she heard that the victim was crying. She noticed that Westervelt was speaking with T.S.
and heard him ask T.S. if he had called the victim “autistic.” Zigman found the victim and
asked why he was crying. The victim stated that T.S. had called him “autistic.”
Marsich spoke with Westervelt. Westervelt stated that Velli reported that T.S. had
called the victim “autistic.” 	Westervelt said that T.S. did not deny calling the victim
“autistic” and said that he called him “autistic” in response to the victim saying something
unkind. Westervelt did not say what the victim said to T.S.
Marsich spoke with Witness 3. 	Witness 3 stated that T.S. was playing hotshot,
which is a basketball game. 	Witness 3 heard the victim tell T.S. to “stop” and “don’t hit
me,” and that T.S. called the victim “dumb.” Witness 3 did not hear the victim say anything
to T.S., did not see T.S. touch the victim, and believes that T.S. was upset because the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
5
victim was not making any baskets. The victim was crying after T.S. called him “dumb,”
and T.S. only said those harsh words to the victim.
Marsich also spoke with Witness 4. Witness 4 stated that the victim and T.S. were
not talking nicely to each other. T.S. said that the victim was not good at basketball and
that the victim said he was better than T.S. The victim and T.S. said things back and forth
to each other, but T.S. used more inappropriate and harsh words. Shortly after that, she
saw the victim walk away and was crying.
Marsich also spoke with Witness 5. Witness 5 said that T.S. and the victim were
having a “little” argument in basketball but did not hear the entire argument. 	Witness 5
stated that he heard T.S. call the victim “autistic” and that the victim said, “I am.”
Marsich also spoke with Karalyn Maggino, a lunch aide, who told her that a few
days prior to the incident, T.S. asked to tell her a joke. 	T.S. said, “What do you call an
autistic person with a gun?” She told T.S. that it was not an appropriate joke for school
and that T.S. laughed.
On March 5, 2024, Marsich spoke with Z.S., the mother of T.S. Z.S. said that some
of the boys on the basketball team are not nice to her son, and maybe the victim is one
of those boys. 	Z.S. told Marsich that she would have T.S. apologize to the victim and
would confirm whether T.S. did call the victim “autistic.” Marsich explained that T.S. had
also used the word “autistic” in a joke during lunch. Z.S. explained that T.S. uses those
jokes in the context of “yo mamma” but would tell T.S. it was not appropriate at school.
Marsich stated that she would like to speak with Z.S., Ms. Velli and T.S. after school to
discuss autism; however, Z.S. indicated she would like to obtain T.S.’s version of the
incident before the meeting was scheduled. 	Marsich explained the HIB process. 	Z.S.
said that a student had called T.S. “gay,” and that incident was not investigated. No HIB
report was filed for this incident; Marsich was only told of the incident verbally, and she
could not find any other students to corroborate the incident. 	Z.S. stated that the only
reason that Marsich was investigating this report is because T.S. is Muslim.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
6
On March 8, 2024, Marsich concluded that there was an incident of HIB that was
based on a motivating factor, namely a mental, physical, or sensory disability; that it was
a single incident that occurred on school property; that it resulted in the disruption of the
rights of another student; that T.S. should have known that under the circumstances the
conduct would have caused emotional harm that would have insulted or demeaned the
victim; and that it created a hostile educational environment interfering with the victim’s
education. Marsich filed her report with Lauren Barbelet, the Superintendent of Woodcliff
Lake School District.
On March 21, 2024, Barbelet informed T.S.’s parents of the findings (R-B), and
petitioner requested a hearing. (R-C; R-D.) On May 2, 2024, the Board held a hearing.
S.S. argued that there were procedural violations that violated T.S.’s constitutional rights;
that there were no written statements from the victim or the witnesses; that there was a
failure to maintain confidentiality; that the statements from the victim and witnesses were
hearsay; that Marsich did not witness any of the comments; that Westervelt did not hear
T.S. call the victim any names; that Westervelt isolated T.S. when he was being
questioned and therefore intimidated him; and that the comments did not interfere with
the victim’s rights or disrupt his education.
The Board determined that there were no procedural violations and that there were
no violations of T.S.’s constitutional rights. 	The Board also determined that the
investigation complied with ABBRA and the Board’s HIB policy. 	The Board concluded
that the witnesses’ statements and T.S.’s statements that the victim was “autistic,” “weird”
and “dumb” established a preponderance of credible evidence that T.S. did in fact make
negative 	comments 	about 	the 	victim’s 	perceived 	intellectual 	and 	developmental
characteristics, that these comments upset the victim causing him to cry, and that this
therefore interfered with the victim’s education.
The Board determined that, considering T.S.’s school record, no discipline was
warranted. The Board recommended remedial measures to inform him about autism and
the need to be sensitive to words and phrases describing individuals and to learn
appropriate methods for conflict resolution. 	Because discipline was not imposed, the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
7
violation is not reported out of the district and will only be used in the future if there are
other HIB violations.
On May 8, 2024, the Board sent a letter to S.S. and Z.S. (R-F) notifying them that
the HIB finding was affirmed, that no discipline would be imposed, and that T.S. would be
given instruction on autism and the need to be sensitive to words and phrases describing
individuals and appropriate methods for conflict resolution.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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). This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule embodied
in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield,
17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). All inferences of doubt are drawn against the party filing the motion
and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. 	Id. at 75. 	The judge’s
function is to determine whether there are genuine issues of fact to be adjudicated. Brill
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of material fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary
decision.
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (“Act”), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying [HIB] of students that
occur in school and off school premises.” The procedures for investigating a report of a
HIB require that an investigation be initiated and completed no later than ten days from
the date of the report of the HIB incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
8
A finding of HIB requires three elements. 	First, the conduct must be reasonably
perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or
other distinguishing characteristic. 	Enumerated characteristics include race, color,
religion, 	ancestry, 	national 	origin, 	gender, 	sexual 	orientation, 	gender 	identity 	and
expression, 	mental, 	physical 	or 	sensory 	disability, 	or 	any 	other 	distinguishing
characteristic. Second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights
of other students or the orderly operation of the school. 	Third, one of the three criteria
enumerated in the Act regarding the effect of the conduct must also be satisfied. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14. The conduct must also take place on school property, at a school-sponsored
function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3.
Finally, HIB means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic
communication that “a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will
have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student,” “has the effect of insulting
or demeaning any student,” or “creates a hostile educational environment.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14.
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless there is an
affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or
induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not
arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,” and the
commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage
Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973).
T.S. and the victim were playing basketball during gym class at the elementary
school. At some point, the two exchanged comments. T.S.’s comments escalated, and
he called the victim several names, including “weird,” “dumb” and “autistic.” There were
several witnesses to the exchange between T.S. and the victim. 	At first, T.S. denied
calling the victim any names. 	However, when Marsich pointed out his conflicting
statements to Westervelt, T.S. admitted that he did call the victim “dumb” and only called
the victim “autistic” because the victim kept bugging him. T.S. knew that the comments
were hurtful and knew that they would cause the victim to cry. T.S. knew his comments

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
9
were inappropriate prior to this incident. 	T.S. was told that such comments were not
appropriate for school.
Petitioner raises the same arguments that he raised at the Board hearing.
Petitioner argues that the HIB investigation did not have any signed witness statements,
there was a breach of confidentiality, and the witness statements were contradictory and
hearsay. ABBRA does not require signed witness statements. ABBRA only requires that
the investigation be completed within ten days of the report of the HIB incident. It does
not specify how the investigation should be conducted or whether written statements are
a necessary requirement of the investigation. The Board’s policy mirrors ABBRA.
The Board complied with the statute. 	It retained an antibullying investigator,
Marsich. 	The investigation took place within the required time frame, seven days from
the time of the incident report and the time of completion of the investigation and was
reported to petitioners. 	The investigation concluded that there was an incident of HIB,
but that discipline was not necessary. 	Marsich recommended T.S. attend an afternoon
information session about autism and that he learn the need to be sensitive to words and
phrases describing individuals and appropriate methods for conflict resolution. 	The
statute permits the Board to affirm, reject, or modify Marsich’s decision, which it did.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that there was a violation of ABBRA because T.S.
admitted to calling the victim’s names motivated by the victim’s perceived mental, physical
or sensory disability, which resulted in the victim being reduced to tears. 	T.S. knew his
actions would cause the victim emotional harm, which violated the victim’s rights and
therefore interfered with the victim’s education. I FURTHER CONCLUDE that the Board
did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in affirming the investigation report.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED, and the
petition is DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
10
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. 	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.
October 2, 2025
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	October 2, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	October 2, 2025

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12063-24
11
APPENDIX
Moving papers for petitioner:
Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision, dated August 24, 2025
Moving papers for respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision with Brief with Exhibits A−F, dated January 31, 2025
Respondent’s Reply, dated September 12, 2025
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
None
For respondent:
Exhibit A – HIB Investigation Report # 2022-23/18 THS-10, dated March 8, 2024
Exhibit B – Woodcliff Lake’s letter to petitioner, dated March 21, 2024
Exhibit C – Petitioner’s letter to Woodcliff Lake, dated April 3, 2024
Exhibit D – Petitioner’s email to Woodcliff Lake, dated April 6, 2024
Exhibit E – Woodcliff Lake’s letter to petitioner, dated May 8, 2024
Exhibit F – Woodcliff Lake’s Board Policy No. 5512