W.M. and M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, 8/1/2023, (#223-23)

OAL Dkt. No. 00065-23
Agency Dkt. No. 376-12/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
W.M. and M.M., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed by petitioners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed and
considered.1
By way of background, petitioners2 alleged that their minor child was the victim of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). On or about December 27, 2021, the Lafayette
Board of Education (Board) issued a decision that petitioners’ child was not the victim of HIB.
On January 19, 2022, the Commissioner transmitted a case captioned M.M., on behalf of
minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, and
1 The Board did not file a reply to petitioners’ exceptions.
2 Throughout the course of the events related to this case, some actions have been undertaken by petitioners
jointly, while others were done by M.M. individually. For ease of reference, all actions taken by W.M. and/or M.M.
on behalf of their child, whether jointly or individually, will be referred to as actions taken by “petitioners.”
223-23

2
Jennifer Cenatiempo, former Superintendent, Agency Dkt. No. 216-11/21,3 to the OAL for a
hearing regarding the merits of the Board’s HIB decision and alleged violations of the Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act.
On December 30, 2022, petitioners filed the petition of appeal and motion for emergent
relief in the instant matter (the “2022 case”). The 2022 case was transmitted to the OAL on
January 3, 2023. The relief requested included home instruction for petitioners’ child, an order
requiring the Board to comply with a previous Commissioner decision regarding copies of video
evidence, and the scheduling of a HIB appeal with a “new and impartial” judge. Petitioners’
motion for emergent relief was denied. W.M. and M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of
Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, Commissioner Decision No. 33-23E
(February 3, 2023).
Thereafter, the Board filed a motion for summary decision. The Hon. Nanci G. Stokes,
ALJ, found that petitioners had previously filed a motion to disqualify Judge Bongiovanni from
the 2021 case; the motion was denied by the Acting Director of the OAL, and Judge Stokes
concluded that she had no authority to disturb that Order. Judge Stokes further concluded that
the issue of the video evidence was moot because Judge Bongiovanni had addressed it in a
discovery order, which Judge Stokes determined she had no authority to disturb.
Regarding petitioners’ request for home instruction, Judge Stokes determined that the
2022 case essentially replicates the issues raised in the 2021 case. Judge Stokes noted that, if
petitioners prevailed on their 2021 case and demonstrated that HIB occurred and the Board’s
3 This case will be referred to as the “2021 case.” It bears OAL Docket Number EDU 00546-22 and was assigned to
the Hon. Ernest Bongiovanni, ALJ. There is a typographical error on page 6 of the Initial Decision that identifies the
OAL Docket Number for the 2021 case as EDU 00456-22. All other references to the 2021 case in the Initial
Decision identify the correct OAL Docket Number of EDU 00546-22.

3
decision to the contrary was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the relief ordered by Judge
Bongiovanni might include home instruction. Judge Stokes rejected petitioners’ argument that
they had not requested home instruction as part of the 2021 case, citing to the entire
controversy doctrine and to the OAL rules that provide for liberal amendments to pleadings.
In their exceptions, petitioners argue that the 2022 case is not duplicative of the 2021
case, because they did not request home instruction in the 2021 case. Petitioners also contend
that they are not re-arguing discovery issues, but rather are seeking enforcement of the
Commissioner’s decision ordering the Board to produce video evidence. Finally, petitioners
contend that Judge Bongiovanni is biased and therefore should not be permitted to handle the
2021 case.4
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with Judge Stokes’ decision granting the
Board’s motion for summary decision. As Judge Stokes noted, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10(j),
the Director of the OAL is the agency head for purposes of motions to disqualify. Therefore,
neither Judge Stokes nor the Commissioner have the authority to overturn the Director’s
decision regarding petitioners’ motion to disqualify Judge Bongiovanni. Furthermore, as the
4 Petitioners also contend that Judge Bongiovanni denied them the discovery they requested and refused to allow
them to appear virtually for the proceedings regarding the above-noted 2021 case. Those allegations are not
addressed herein, as this decision is limited to a review of Judge Stokes’ Initial Decision regarding the 2022 case.
Petitioners may present any and all arguments regarding Judge Bongiovanni’s orders, or the way in which he
handled proceedings, for the Commissioner’s review when she considers and decides the 2021 case. Petitioner
also makes allegations regarding a petition filed in 2020, which are not addressed herein, as the Commissioner has
already issued a decision in that matter. M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Agency Dkt. 94-5/20, EDU 05225-20, Commissioner Decision No. 43-22 (March 4, 2022). There is a
typographical error on page 6 of the Initial Decision that identifies the OAL Docket Number for the 2020 matter as
EDU 07225-20. All other references to the 2020 matter in the Initial Decision identify the correct OAL Docket
Number of 05225-20.

4
Commissioner’s decision regarding the video evidence was issued in the 2021 case, any issues
related to that evidence must be addressed in those proceedings to avoid piecemeal litigation.
Finally, regarding the request for home instruction, the Commissioner finds that
petitioners are not precluded from seeking that relief in the proceedings related to the 2021
case. As the request for home instruction is based entirely on petitioners’ allegations that their
child is unsafe at school because he has been the victim of HIB, it is in the interests of judicial
economy to determine whether home instruction is an appropriate remedy in the 2021 case,
which was transmitted to address petitioners’ HIB claims.
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.5
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
5 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.
August 1, 2023
August 1, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
AGENCY DKT. 376-12/22
W.M. & M.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP OF
LAFAYETTE, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondents.
______________________________________
M.M. and W.M., pro se, o/b/o their minor child
Eric L. Harrison, Esq., for respondents (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys)
Record Closed: 	June 09, 2023 	Decided: June 19, 2023
BEFORE NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Through another case, petitioners are challenging the respondent’s 2020 finding
that no harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) occurred against their child, in which
the Judge ordered discovery and scheduled a hearing. Are petitioners entitled to home
instruction, a new judge, or relief from the order through a new petition? No. Consideration

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
2
of moot issues and duplicative cases is improper and impairs judicial economy. Cogdell
v. Hosp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Following the alleged events in the petitioners’ HIB complaint between January 10
and 17, 2020, the petitioners removed their minor child from school. 	In this case,
petitioners seek home instruction for their minor child, an order requiring compliance with
the Commissioner of Education’s (Commissioner) orders regarding video evidence they
sought in earlier cases for the same HIB dispute, and a hearing before another judge on
the HIB denial appeal.
On January 3, 2023, the Department of Education, Office of Controversies and
Disputes, transmitted this case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for hearing as a
contested case and resolution of petitioners' motion for emergency relief.
The Lafayette Township School District’s Board of Education (Lafayette or Board)
provided the OAL with multiple documents regarding the videos on January 5, 2023,
which the Clerk supplied to me after the case’s reassignment.1 	On January 5, 2023,
petitioners also supplemented their application.
I requested the Board submit a reply to the emergent application, which I received
on January 6, 2023.
On January 9, 2023, petitioner M.M. advised that she and her son had COVID and
requested time to recover. I adjourned the argument on petitioners’ emergent relief and
permitted additional submissions from the parties.
On January 12, 2023, the Board submitted additional materials.
1 The OAL’s clerk initially assigned the case to Judge Bongiovanni whom the OAL long ago scheduled as
an emergent judge for January 9, 2023. 	After the petitioners requested case reassignment, the Acting
Director assigned the emergent relief motion to me, and the OAL scheduled an oral argument for January
11, 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
3
On January 13, 2023, petitioners filed three submissions, including a response to
Lafayette’s opposition with attachments, a brief regarding Judge Bongiovanni’s order, and
exhibits about the request to disqualify Judge Bongiovanni. On January 17, 2023, I heard
oral argument on the emergent application via Zoom.
On January 18, 2023, I issued an order denying petitioners’ request for emergent
relief, concluding that petitioners did not meet the requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
The Commissioner upheld my determination.
On March 27, 2023, petitioners advised the OAL that the audio of the emergent
argument was impaired, and portions appeared missing. 	The OAL’s IT department
determined that the connectivity was skipped briefly during Zoom, leaving short audio
gaps. 	I 	directed 	petitioners 	to 	identify 	the 	missing 	recording 	segments 	and 	offer
statements they believe were not recorded to supplement the record. On April 20, 2023,
petitioners submitted corrections to the transcript and record. 	On April 21, 2023,
respondent’s 	counsel 	advised 	that 	he 	had 	no 	objection 	to 	petitioners’ 	proposed
modifications to the record, and I ordered supplementation of the record with petitioners’
corrections enumerated one to twenty-four.2
On May 2, 2023, I scheduled a telephone conference for June 12, 2023, to which
petitioners objected and requested I render an Initial Decision instead. 	This tribunal
advised that a dispositive motion or a hearing precedes an Initial Decision.
On May 18, 2023, Lafayette filed a motion for summary decision. 	I rescheduled
the telephone conference for August 10, 2023, and set a motion response schedule.
Petitioners filed their objection to Lafayette’s motion on June 8, 2023, and
Lafayette replied on June 9, 2023. I permitted an additional reply by petitioners, which I
received on June 9, 2023. Lafayette waived any further reply that day, and I closed the
record.
2 The petitioners sought interlocutory review of the emergent relief denial from the Appellate Division, but
did not complete that application. Although I ordered supplementation of the record per petitioners’ request,
they opted not to proceed with that review.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
4
FINDINGS OF FACTS
Based on the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motions
for summary decision, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, I
FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion:
On February 20, 2020, the Lafayette’s anti-bullying coordinator issued a report,
concluding that the complaint’s alleged conduct did not meet the statutory definition of
HIB, but did violate the Student Code of Conduct. Further, Lafayette would take remedial
measures to ensure that M.M.’s son felt comfortable in school, including seat changes in
physical education and classrooms, and monitoring by teachers and the school’s social
worker. Petitioners challenge that Lafayette initiated these remedial steps.
Petitioners filed several petitions regarding respondent’s actions, disagreeing with
its HIB determination and asserting that the HIB investigation leading to Lafayette’s HIB
denial was inaccurate.
Video Discovery and the Scope of OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 00546-22
Specifically, M.M. filed an appeal with the Commissioner to which the OAL
assigned a docket number, EDU 05225-20. 	On August 7, 2020, Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Jude Tiscornia granted summary decision in favor of Lafayette under EDU
05225-20, finding that petitioners did not request a hearing before the Board making their
claim procedurally deficient and denying copies of security camera video recordings of
M.M. minor child’s gym class in January 2020. Previously, M.M. reviewed videos of the
gym class at the school while accompanied by a school employee.
On November 5, 2020, the Commissioner adopted the decision, agreeing that the
claim was not ripe, and that Lafayette need not produce the videos. The Commissioner
also noted that it only had jurisdiction over New Jersey’s school laws, not federal ones.
M.M. asserted, in part, that she should receive copies of the videos under the Family

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
5
Educational 	Rights 	and 	Privacy 	Act 	(FERPA), 	20 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1232g, 	outside 	the
Commissioner’s jurisdiction. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Yet, addressing the New Jersey’s Pupil
Records Act, N.J.S.A 18A:36-19, the Commissioner highlighted that the Act only required
Lafayette to provide M.M. access to her child’s records, not copies. N.J.A.C. 6A:37-2.5.
Lafayette previously agreed to let petitioner come to school and watch the videos. 	In
other words, Lafayette granted petitioner “access.” Notably, on September 18, 2020, the
United States Department of Education also denied petitioner’s request for the videos
under FERPA.
M.M. appealed from the Commissioner’s Final Decision and the Appellate Division
remanded the case to the Commissioner. 	On December 20, 2021, the Commissioner
denied the Board’s summary decision request on remand and ordered the Board to issue
a written HIB determination regarding HIB Coordinator’s February 20, 2020, report.
Indeed, the Anti-Bullying Rights Act (ABRA), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -37, necessitates
Board action concerning HIB complaints and investigations. 	Although the Board
accepted the decision at its March 18, 2020, meeting, the Board had yet to issue a written
decision upholding the determination; it did so on December 27, 2021. 	The December
20, 2021, order also required the Board to provide the videos petitioner requested.
The Board filed a motion to reconsider the December 20, 2021, Final Decision,
which the Commissioner denied on January 19, 2022. 	Because the Board issued its
decision on the HIB February 20, 2020, determination, the Commissioner concluded that
petitioner M.M.’s challenge to that decision was now ripe, permitting transmittal to the
OAL for adjudication of that determination and “any other violations of the [ABRA].”
Further, as with any transmitted case, the Commissioner highlighted that petitioner is
“entitled to discovery, including the video evidence.” 	That case is pending before the
Hon. Ernest Bongiovanni, ALJ, under OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00546-22, Agency Dkt, 216-
11/21. Judge Bongiovanni scheduled the case for a hearing on June 30, 2023, and
Lafayette maintains it is ready to proceed in that case.
Like 	the 	petition 	here, 	M.M. 	also 	sought 	video 	evidence 	she 	asserts 	the
Commissioner ordered from Judge Bongiovanni. 	Indeed, petitioners view the January
19, 2022, order transmitting the case to the OAL as ordering copies of the videos

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
6
petitioners previously sought. Yet, Lafayette opposed that discovery, believing that the
Commissioner’s Orders conflicted; one denied the request, and the other granted the
request. Further, petitioners were unsuccessful under FERPA.
On January 21, 2022, M.M. forwarded the same discovery demands in EDU
00456-22 that she sought in EDU 07225-20, more than her first request and her earlier
review of videos at the school after the 2020 HIB allegations.
Lafayette sought to prevent the release of considerable security footage that
necessarily 	includes 	images 	of 	staff 	and 	many 	other 	minor 	students, 	potentially
compromising the privacy interests of hundreds of individuals. Still, on February 8, 2022,
Lafayette provided nearly six hours of footage to M.M. relevant to its HIB investigation of
the January 17, 2020, complaint. Further, Lafayette offered M.M. an opportunity to review
the other videos she requested at the school, followed by submitting a list of video clips
she thought relevant to the case. M.M. did not accept that proposal.
Unable to resolve Lafayette’s offer, M.M. filed a motion with Judge Bongiovanni
seeking sanctions for non-compliance with the Commissioner’s January 19, 2022, order.
Significantly, on January 9, 2023, Judge Bongiovanni entered an order regarding the
video evidence and converted petitioners’ motion for sanctions to one seeking to compel
discovery. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.6(d) (permitting the ALJ to convert any form of proceeding
into another); and N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.6(n) (allowing an ALJ to compel the production of
materials to allow a “full and true disclosure of the facts”.) Judge Bongiovanni’s order
discussed the long history of the video requests and ordered the parties to complete
discovery regarding those videos within sixty days. 	Petitioners disagree with this order
but did not seek interlocutory review of that determination. Still, Lafayette maintains that
it disposes of the video discovery issues in that case and here.
Disqualification
Petitioners sought to disqualify Judge Bongiovanni. Generally, M.M. asserts that
Judge Bongiovanni is biased and favors Lafayette, having disagreed with M.M. during
oral 	argument 	on 	her 	discovery 	motion 	for 	the 	videos. 	However, 	the 	Office 	of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
7
Administrative Law’s (OAL) Acting Director denied M.M.’s disqualification request by letter
order on November 7, 2022. 	To be sure, the earlier case involving the same HIB
complaint continues with Judge Bongiovanni, and the Acting Director did not reassign the
case.
Home Instruction
When all students received home instruction because of the COVID emergency,
so did petitioners’ minor child. 	However, petitioners did not permit their child to return
once students returned to Lafayette’s schools for in-person instruction.
The petitioners believe that the school is hostile and unsafe for their child because
of the school’s alleged failures regarding the HIB investigation, allowing bullying to
continue, not providing discovery ordered by the Commissioner, obstructing justice, and
in delaying a hearing. They maintain that their child fears returning to the school’s hostile,
unsafe environment, and that Lafayette’s actions “caused extensive damage to their
child’s trust in adults.” Thus, petitioners assert that Lafayette must provide their child with
homebound instruction. 	Undeniably, no judge ordered this form of education for
petitioners’ minor child, and petitioners did not identify this relief before. Still, petitioners
have yet to demonstrate that Lafayette’s denial of HIB against their child was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, that Lafayette’s investigation was inaccurate, or that the
school environment is unsafe.
Lafayette brought truancy proceedings and disputes that the school is an unsafe
or hostile environment or that its HIB denial was inaccurate. Notwithstanding, Lafayette
asserts the case before Judge Bongiovanni can address all petitioners’ issues related to
the HIB and that the filing of this case was duplicative. Indeed, petitioners argue the same
HIB complaint failures and discovery disputes here as in the case before Judge
Bongiovanni.
Notably, Lafayette also highlights that petitioners can request home instruction for
health or psychological reasons, such as the fears petitioners claim their child has about
attending school or other medical issues necessitating home instruction. Petitioners can

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
8
support 	such 	a 	request 	with 	medical 	documentation 	recommending 	homebound
instruction, but they supplied none.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary-Decision Standard
A party may move for summary decision upon all or any substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). 	The motion must include briefs, with or without
affidavits. When the filed papers and discovery and any affidavits show that no genuine
issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of
law, the judge may grant the motion. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). When such a motion is made
and supported, an adverse party, to prevail, must submit an affidavit setting forth specific
facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists that can only be determined in
an evidentiary proceeding. Ibid.
Even though a statute calls for a “hearing,” where a motion for summary decision
is made and supported by documentary evidence and where the objector submits no
evidence to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists, the motion procedure
constitutes the hearing, and no trial-type hearing is necessary. Contini v. Newark Bd. of
Educ., 286 N.J. Super. 106, 120–21 (App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996).
To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary judgment, the motion judge must consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are
sufficient to demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
Moreover, even if the non-movant comes forward with some evidence, the court
must grant summary judgment if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the movant] must
prevail as a matter of law.” 	Ibid. at 536 (citation omitted). 	If the non-moving party’s
evidence is “merely colorable or is not significantly probative,” the judge should not deny
summary judgment. Bowles v. City of Camden, 993 F. Supp. 255, 261 (D.N.J. 1998).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
9
Petitioners’ motion response predominantly highlights their disputes regarding the
HIB report, the investigation, the videos, and the school’s actions regarding the HIB.
Further, petitioners express frustration in Lafayette’s litigation posture taken in earlier
cases. 	Yet, those disputes do not require resolution here or prevent summary decision
on the legal grounds Lafayette presents to support its motion. Indeed, those disputes are
before Judge Bongiovanni, and Lafayette does not seek summary decision on whether
the petitioners’ child was the victim of a HIB or whether its investigation or actions were
proper.
Instead, the question is whether petitioners can seek home instruction, a new
judge, or discovery related to a HIB determination and alleged failures regarding the HIB
investigation 	when 	those 	disputed 	issues 	remain 	pending 	before 	another 	judge.
Indisputably, petitioners presented no medical evidence to support home instruction for
their minor child. 	Further, Judge Bongiovanni issued a discovery order addressing the
same videos the petitioners seek here. 	Additionally, the OAL’s Acting Director denied
Judge Bongiovanni’s disqualification. 	Since these facts are clear and undisputed, I
CONCLUDE that this case is ripe for summary decision.
Orders
Petitioners seek a review of Judge Bongiovanni’s discovery order and enforcement
of the Commissioner’s orders regarding the videos through this petition. Additionally, they
seek a judge other than Judge Bongiovanni to decide their HIB disputes despite the OAL’s
Acting Director’s order denying his disqualification.
As 	Lafayette 	points 	out, 	petitioners 	can 	still 	seek 	further 	review 	from 	the
Commissioner or the Appellate Division for this case or in Judge Bongiovanni’s case once
the proceedings end. 	See N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10 (providing that the agency head reviews
orders through interlocutory review); N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6 (noting agency review after the
ALJ issues an initial decision); N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.3 (stating that the Commissioner’s Final
Decisions are appealable to the Appellate Division.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
10
Although administrative law judges have independence in executing “certain
important responsibilities . . . to conduct hearings, make factual findings, and recommend
decisions in contested cases for the various State agencies,” final decision authority rests
with the agency subject to judicial review by the Appellate Division. In re Appeal of Certain
Sections of Unif. Admin. Procedure Rules, 90 N.J. 85, 94 (1982); N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c).
Significantly, the OAL Director is the agency head for interlocutory review regarding judge
disqualification under N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10(j). 	M.M. did not seek interlocutory review of
Judge 	Bongiovanni’s 	discovery 	order. 	Further, 	under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-14.14, 	an
administrative 	law 	judge 	only 	has 	the 	authority 	to 	issue 	sanctions 	for 	a 	party’s
unreasonable failure to comply with any order of that judge or non-compliance with the
OAL rules. (Emphasis added.) 	Thus, I CONCLUDE that I have no authority to disturb
Judge Bongiovanni’s discovery order, or those orders or determinations issued by an
agency head.
Notably, an action is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy
because the issues raised have become academic. For 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 concrete adversity of
interest. Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976); Greenfield v. New
Jersey Dep’t of Corrections, 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006); 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).
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. Indeed, petitioners acknowledge that they filed
this case because Judge Bongiovanni had yet to decide their motion regarding the videos.
However, because Judge Bongiovanni addressed the discovery issue, I CONCLUDE that
the issue is moot here.
Entire Controversy
Petitioners maintain the Commissioner’s January 19, 2022, transmittal of multiple
issues to Judge Bongiovanni was inappropriate. Further, they maintain that the request
for home instruction remains in this case because they did not include that relief in their
earlier petitions. 	Therefore, petitioners argue that I should not grant summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
11
However, the Commissioner’s transmittal determination in the earlier case is not
before 	me. 	Regardless, 	the 	Commissioner 	followed 	the 	well-established 	entire
controversy doctrine designed to avoid piecemeal litigation of issues raised by a single
cause of action. 	Cogdell v. Hosp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989). 	Duplicative
filings are discouraged. See N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.4(c) (discussing duplicative filings).
The objectives behind the entire controversy doctrine are threefold:
1) To 	encourage 	the 	comprehensive 	and 	conclusive
determination of a legal controversy.
2) To achieve party fairness, including both parties before
the court as well as prospective parties.
3) To 	promote 	judicial 	economy 	and 	efficiency 	by
avoiding 	fragmented, 	multiple, 	and 	duplicative
litigation.
[DiTrolio v Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 267 (1995); Cogdell, 116
N.J. at 22-24.]
Further, the “determinative consideration is whether distinct claims are aspects of
a single larger controversy because they arise from interrelated facts,” even where
different causes of action could provide other relief. DiTrolio, 142 N.J. at 271.
Undeniably, the request for home instruction relates to the HIB incident in the case
before Judge Bongiovanni. Should petitioners prevail in demonstrating that a HIB
occurred and that Lafayette’s determination or investigation to the contrary was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, relief might include home instruction to a victim. 	See
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(7) (noting that a school has a range of ways it can respond once
identifying an incident of HIB). Notably, under N.J.A.C. 1:1-6.2, the OAL rules provide for
liberal 	amendments 	to 	pleadings. 	Further, 	petitioners 	can 	still 	provide 	medical
documentation to support a medical basis for home instruction without the need for
litigation or order. Regardless, I CONCLUDE that this petition essentially duplicates the
issues in the earlier petition and that the entire controversy doctrine requires petitioners
to raise all relief in the pending interrelated case.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
12
In sum, I CONCLUDE that summary judgment should be GRANTED in favor of
Lafayette as a matter of law.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that Lafayette be
GRANTED summary decision, and I further ORDER that the petition be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
13
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 19, 2023
DATE 	NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 19, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	June 19, 2023
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00065-23
14
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
For petitioners:
P-1 	Commissioner’s Decision dated January 19, 2022
P-2 	Appendix Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Review
P-3 	Department of Education’s OAL transmittal docketed under EDU 00065-23
P-4 	Department 	of 	Education’s 	response 	to 	M.M.’s 	appeal 	and 	order 	granting
dismissal.
P-5 	Undated Board Minutes and incident report
P-6 	Email exchanges
P-7 	Additional email exchanges regarding videos
P-8 	Materials submitted to Judge Tiscornia
P-9 	Recent HIB complaint
P-10 	Truancy materials
For respondent:
R-1 	Respondent’s June 2022 submission to Judge Bongiovanni, with all exhibits in
EDU 00546-22, Agency Dkt, 216-11/21
R-2 	Order denying emergent relief
R-3 	Commissioner’s Decision affirming denial of the motion for emergent relief.
R-4 	Judge Bongiovanni’s Order denying petitioners’ motion for sanctions in EDU
00546-22, Agency Dkt, 216-11/21