Board of Education of the Township of North Bergen, Hudson County v. New Jersey Department of Education and Angelica Allen-McMillan, Acting Commissioner, 8/22/2023, (#253-23)

253-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of North Bergen,
Bergen County,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education and
Angelica Allen-McMillan, Acting Commissioner,
Respondents.
Synopsis
The petitioner, the Board of Education of the Township of North Bergen (Board), challenged the respondent’s
determination that the Board is responsible for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2019-2020 school year pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(b). In 2017, J.P. was placed at Bancroft Neurohealth (Bancroft) by the Department of
Children and Families (DCF). Prior to this placement, J.P. resided with his mother, M.P., in North Bergen, and
the Board assumed the cost of J.P.’s education at Bancroft as required under N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(b). 	When
M.P.’s address could not be determined as of October 15, 2018, the State of New Jersey assumed financial
responsibility for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2028-2019 school year under N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d). The issue
for determination here is which entity is responsible for the cost of J.P.’s education during the 2019-2020
school year, since M.P.’s address was unknown as of October 15, 2019. 	The parties filed cross motions for
summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; 	the Board’s argument that a student’s present district of residence must be determined by the
Department of Education (DOE) by October 16 of each school year is without merit as the regulations do not
state any such deadline; rather, the regulations state that the district of residence is determined by the
residence of the parents on October 16; in this matter, it was stipulated that J.P.’s mother lived within the
North Bergen School District on October 16, 2019; it is not disputed that DOE informed North Bergen that it
was the district of residence for J.P. in March 2021; there is no provision in the regulation that states that the
DOE must inform a school district that it is the district of residence for a student by October 16 th ; and the
Board’s argument that the doctrine of laches should be invoked in this matter is also without merit. The ALJ
concluded that since M.P. resided in North Bergen beginning in May 2019, the Board’s school district is the
district of residence for J.P. for the 2019-2020 school year. Accordingly, the ALJ granted respondent’s motion
for summary decision and denied the petitioner’s cross motion.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the
final decision is this matter. 	The substantial, credible evidence in the record supports the conclusion that
North Bergen was J.P.’s district of residence for the 2019-2020 school year. Accordingly, summary decision
was granted in favor of the respondent and the petition was dismissed.
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 00807-22
Agency Dkt. No. 226-12/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of
North Bergen, Hudson County,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education and
Angelica Allen-McMillan, Acting Commissioner,
Respondents.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner initiated this action to challenge respondent’s determination that the
North Bergen Board of Education (the Board or North Bergen) is responsible for minor child J.P.’s
educational costs for the 2019-2020 school year pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(b). That statute
provides, in relevant part:
The district of residence for children who are in residential State
facilities, or who have been placed by State agencies in group homes,
skill development homes, [or] private schools . . . shall be the present
district of residence of the parent or guardian with whom the child
lived prior to his most recent admission to a State facility or most
recent placement by a State agency.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(b).]
Consistent with the statute, the corresponding regulations at N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(a)(2)
explain that “[t]he ‘present district of residence’ of a child placed by a State agency in a group
253-23

2
home, skill development home, [or] approved private school for students with disabilities . . . means
the New Jersey district of residence of the child’s parent(s) or guardian(s) as of the date of the
child’s most recent placement by the State agency.” Additionally, the regulations provide that “[i]n
subsequent school years spent in the educational placement made by a State agency, the child’s
‘present district of residence’” is “the New Jersey district of residence of the child’s parent(s) or
guardian(s) as of the last school day prior to October 16.” N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(a)(1), (a)(2).
The Commissioner of Education, or her designee, is responsible for determining the child’s
present district of residence “based upon by the address submitted by the Department of
Corrections, the Department of Children and Families, or the Juvenile Justice Commission on forms
prepared by the Department of Education.” N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.3(b). The Department of Education
(DOE) must notify the responsible district of its determination. N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.3(c). “In order to
prevent a lapse in the child’s education and/or child study services, the district board of education
shall be bound by such determination unless and until it is reversed on redetermination or appeal . .
. .” Ibid.
The DOE’s district of residence determination “is entitled to a presumption of correctness.”
Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
School Funding, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05063-10, Initial Decision at 10 (Oct. 4, 2010), aff’d,
Commissioner Decision No. 465-10 (Nov. 8, 2010). “[W]hen a local school board contests a district-
of-residence determination made by the Department, the local board bears the burden of proving
that the determination was in error.” Ibid.
The material facts are undisputed. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) placed
J.P. at Bancroft Neurohealth on May 18, 2017. Prior to placement, J.P. resided with his mother,
M.P., in North Bergen. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d), the State of New Jersey assumed fiscal

3
responsibility for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2018-2019 school year after the DOE determined
that M.P.’s address was unknown as of October 15, 2018.
On March 3, 2021, DCF requested a district of residence determination for J.P. and informed
the DOE that M.P. had resided at a permanent address in North Bergen since May 2019. The record
contains a copy of a residential lease for an apartment in North Bergen listing M.P. as the occupant
effective May 15, 2019, until May 31, 2021.1 Via letter dated March 29, 2021, the DOE informed
petitioner that because M.P. resided at a permanent address in North Bergen “on October 15, 2020
[sic] and October 15, 2020,” petitioner was responsible for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2019-
2020 and 2020-2021 school years.2
On November 23, 2021, the DOE sent petitioner a second letter to correct the typographical
error that appeared in the March 29, 2021, letter. The second letter informed petitioner that
because M.P. resided at a permanent address in North Bergen “on October 15, 2019 and
October 15, 2020,” petitioner was responsible for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2019-2020 and
2020-2021 school years.
On or about December 2, 2021, the Board filed an appeal of respondent’s district of
residence determination with the Office of Controversies and Disputes. The matter was
transmitted to the OAL and the parties moved for summary decision. The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) granted respondent’s motion for summary decision upon concluding that North Bergen was
J.P’s district of residence for the 2019-2020 school year and that it was therefore responsible for
J.P.’s educational costs for that year.
1 J.P.’s father resides elsewhere in North Bergen Township.
2 Petitioner does not contest the DOE’s determination for the 2020-2021 school year. Its petition states that
“[a]fter conducting its own investigation,” it agreed “that M.P. was in fact a resident of North Bergen at least as of
April 29, 2021.”

4
In so doing, the ALJ rejected the Board’s contention that it should be absolved of payment
of J.P.’s educational costs for the 2019-2020 school year under the doctrine of laches because the
DOE did not provide notice to petitioner that it was J.P.’s district of residence until March 2021.
The ALJ correctly noted that the relevant regulations do not provide a deadline for the DOE to give
notice to the district of residence. Moreover, the ALJ recognized that the DOE was not notified by
DCF until March 2021 that M.P. had a permanent address in North Bergen as of May 2019. Once
the DOE received this information from DCF, it sent a letter to petitioner that same month notifying
it of its financial obligation for J.P.’s educational costs.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record in this matter, the Commissioner adopts the
ALJ’s findings and conclusions as set forth in the Initial Decision. The substantial, credible evidence
in the record supports the conclusion that North Bergen was J.P.’s district of residence for the 2019-
2020 school year. Petitioner provided no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, petitioner is
responsible for J.P.’s educational costs for the 2019-2020 school year.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary decision is granted, petitioner’s cross-
motion for summary decision is denied, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
August 22, 2023
August 23, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT.NO. EDU 00807-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 226-12/21
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION 	OF 	THE
TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, HUDSON
COUNTY,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW 	JERSEY 	DEPARTMENT 	OF
EDUCATION 	& 	ANGELICA 	ALLEN
MCMILLIAN, ACTING COMMISSIONER,
Respondent.
____________________________________
Jason Ryglicki, Esq. for petitioner (Ryglicki & Gillman, P.C. attorneys)
Sadia Ahsanuddin, Esq., for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney
General)
Record Closed: July 9, 2023 	Decided: July 21, 2023
BEFORE: KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
The Department of Education (DOE) determined that the Board of Education for
the Township of North Bergen (North Bergen) is responsible for the tuition of J.P. for the
2019-2020 school year. 	North Bergen appealed the DOE’s determination. 	DOE filed a
motion to dismiss the petition in lieu of answer on or about January 27, 2022. 	North

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
2
Bergen filed opposition to the motion on March 1, 2022. 	DEP filed a reply to the
opposition on June 7, 2022. I denied the motion on July 11, 2022.
On March 23, 2023, DOE filed a motion for Summary Decision. North Bergen
filed a cross motion for summary decision on April 10, 2023. 	The DOE filed a reply to
the opposition on May 15, 2023. 	North Bergen filed a sur reply on July 9, 2023, on
which date the record closed.
.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
I FIND the following stipulated FACTS:
1. 	This case is a district of residence appeal involving student J.P.
2. 	J.P.’s date of birth is March 13, 2005.
3. 	On May 18, 2017, J.P. was placed by the Department of Children and Families
(“DCF”) at Bancroft Neurohealth.
4. 	Prior to placement at Neurohealth, J.P. resided with his mother M.P. in the
township of North Bergen.
5. 	In 	a 	letter 	dated 	May 	17, 	2019, 	the 	Department 	of 	Education 	made 	a
determination that the address of M.P. was unknown on October 15, 2018, and
therefore, that the State would be responsible for the educational costs of J.P. for
the 2018-2019 school year. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is a true and accurate
copy of the May 17, 2019, letter from the Department of Education.
6. 	On April 26, 2019, M.P. signed a lease for occupancy at 39 74th Street, Apt. B4,
North Bergen, NJ 07047, to start on May 15, 2019. 	Attached hereto as “Exhibit
B” is a true and accurate copy of the lease that M.P. signed on April 26, 2019.
7. 	In May 2019, M.P. secured a permanent address at 39-74th Street, Apt. B4,
North Bergen, NJ 07047.
8. 	The lease for 39-74th Street, Apt. B4, North Bergen, NJ 07047 lists M.P. as the
tenant from May 15, 2019, to May 31, 2021.
9. 	The address 39-74th Street, Apt. B4, North Bergen, NJ 07047 falls within the
North Bergen Public School District.
10. 	On October 15, 2019, M.P. was listed on a lease for 39-74th Street, Apt. B4,
North Bergen, NJ 07047.
11. 	M.P. was a resident of North Bergen in May 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
3
12. 	On March 1, 2021, the Division of Children and Families completed form CP&P
25-65 for J.P. This form stated that: “The mother, [M.P.] has resided in a
permanent address in North Bergen since 5/2019.” 	The form also stated, “J.
resided with his mother prior to the initial Dept P [sic] placement.” 	Attached
hereto as “Exhibit C” is March 1, 2021 Form.
13. 	On March 29, 2021 the Department of Education sent a letter to North Bergen,
stating that “North Bergen School District is responsible for the educational costs
of the child for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years.” 	This letter further
provided that the Department of Education made this determination because
J.P.'s mother, M.P., was a resident of North Bergen on “October 15, 2020 and
October 15, 2020 [sic].” 	Attached hereto as “Exhibit D” is a true and accurate
copy of the March 29, 2021 letter from the Department of Education.
14. 	On May 3, 2021, M.P. signed a month-to-month lease for occupancy at 39-74th
Street, Apt. B4, North Bergen, NJ.
15. 	On November 23, 2021, DOE sent a revised letter to North Bergen which stated
that “On October 15, 2019 and October 15, 2020, [J.P.’s] mother [M.P.], resided
at 39 74th Street, Apt. B4, North Bergen, NJ 07047-6920.” 	Attached hereto as
“Exhibit E” is a true and accurate copy of the November 23, 2021 letter from the
Department of Education.
16. 	C.P. is J.P.’s father.
17. 	C.P. currently resides at 7508 Park Avenue, Apt. 205 North Bergen, New Jersey
07047.
LEGAL ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION
The 	rules 	governing 	motions 	for 	summary 	decision 	in 	an 	OAL 	matter 	are
embodied N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	These provisions mirror the language of Rule 4:46-2 and
the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust
Company 	of 	Westfield, 	17 	N.J. 	67 	(1954). 	Under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b), 	the
determination to grant summary judgment should be based on the papers presented as
well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application. 	In order for the
adverse, i.e., the non-moving party to prevail in such an application, responding
affidavits must be submitted showing that there is indeed a genuine issue of fact, which
can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding. The Court in Brill v. Guardian Life

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
4
Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995), set the standard to be
applied when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Therein the Court stated:
The determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a
material fact challenged requires the Motion Judge to consider whether
the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are sufficient to permit a
rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
There is no material issue of fact in this matter.
N.J.A.C. 6A:19.2 provides:
(a) 	The 	district 	of 	residence 	for 	school 	funding 	purposes 	shall 	be
determined according to the following criteria:
1. The "present district of residence" of a child in a residential State
facility, defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-45 and referred to in the first paragraph
of N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12.b, means the New Jersey district of residence of
the child's parent(s) or guardian(s) as of the last school day prior to
October 16.
2. The "present district of residence" of a child placed by a State agency in
a 	group home, 	skill development home, approved private school 	for
students with disabilities or out-of-State facility, also referred to in N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-12.b means the New Jersey district of residence of the child's
parent(s) 	or 	guardian(s) 	as 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	child's 	most 	recent
placement by the State agency. In subsequent school years spent in the
educational placement made by a State agency, the child's "present
district of residence" shall be determined in the same manner as for a
child in a residential State facility as set forth in (a)1 above.
3. If the State becomes the child's legal guardian after the date of the
child's initial placement by a State agency, the State will assume financial
responsibility for the child's educational costs in subsequent school years.
(b) The "present district of residence" or "district of residence" referred to
in N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12.b shall be determined by the Commissioner or his
or her designee based upon the address submitted by the Department of
Corrections, the Department of Children and Families, or the Juvenile
Justice Commission on forms prepared by the Department of Education.
(c) The district board of education shall be notified by the Department of
the determination of the district of residence. In order to prevent a lapse in
the child's education and/or child study services, the district board of
education shall be bound by such determination unless and until it is
reversed on redetermination or appeal pursuant to the provisions of (e)
and (f) below.
(d) A district board of education contesting the Department's determination
of district of residence shall submit a written notification of a dispute to the
Office of School Facilities and Finance within 30 days of the receipt of a
final notice that a child was determined to be a resident of the district for

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
5
purposes of State funding. As part of this written notice, the following
information shall be submitted:
1. A written statement detailing the effort of the district board of education
to verify the determination of the Department;
2. Written rationale for rejecting the determination of the Department; and
3. Any additional information the district board of education has obtained
that might enable redetermination of the district of residence.
(e) The Office of School Facilities and Finance shall attempt to resolve the
dispute administratively and shall notify the district board of education
whether a redetermination of district of residence will be made within 90
days of the receipt of written notification that a dispute exists.
(f) A district board of education may initiate a formal proceeding before the
Commissioner to resolve such a dispute if the Office of School Facilities
and Finance is unable to resolve a dispute within the 90-day time limit, by
filing 	a 	Petition 	of 	Appeal 	with 	the 	Commissioner 	pursuant 	to 	the
provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3, Controversies and Disputes.
(g) As prescribed by N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12, the "district of residence" for a
homeless child whose parent(s) or guardian(s) temporarily moves from
one school district to another is the district in which the parent(s) or
guardian(s) last resided prior to becoming homeless. This district shall be
designated as the district of residence for as long as the parent(s) or
guardian(s) remains homeless.
N.J.S.A. 18A: 7B-2 provides:
a. For each State-placed child who is resident in a district and in a State
facility on the last school day prior to October 16 of the prebudget year,
and for each district-placed child who is resident in a district and in a State
facility on the last school day prior to October 16 of the budget year, the
Commissioner of Education shall deduct from the State aid payable to that
district 	an amount 	equal 	to 	the approved per 	pupil 	cost 	established
pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of P.L.1996, c.138 (C.18A:7F-24);
except that for a child in a county juvenile detention center, no deduction
shall be made until Fiscal Year 1999, in which year and thereafter 50% of
the per pupil cost shall be deducted.
b. If, for any district, the amount to be deducted pursuant to subsection a.
of this section is greater than State aid payable to the district, the district
shall pay to the Department of Education the difference between the
amount to be deducted and the State aid payable to the district.
c. The amount deducted pursuant to subsection a. of this section and the
amount paid to the Department of Education pursuant to subsection b. of
this section shall be forwarded to the Department of Human Services or
the Department of Children and Families, as applicable, if the facility is
operated by or under contract with that department, or to the Department
of Corrections if the facility is operated by or under contract with that
department, or to the Juvenile Justice Commission established pursuant
to section 2 of P.L.1995, c.284 (C.52:17B-170) if the facility is operated by
or under contract with that commission, and shall serve as payment by the
district of tuition for the child. In the case of county juvenile detention
centers, 	the 	tuition 	shall 	be 	deemed 	to 	supplement 	funds 	currently

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
6
provided by the county for this purpose under chapter 10 and chapter 11
of Title 9 of the Revised Statutes. In Fiscal Year 1998, a county shall not
decrease its level of contribution as a result of the payment of tuition
pursuant to this section. In Fiscal Year 1999 and thereafter, a county shall
be required to pay 50% of the approved per pupil costs established
pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of P.L.1996, c.138 (C.18A:7F-24)
for the purpose of implementing chapters 10 and 11 of Title 9 of the
Revised Statutes. Amounts so deducted shall be used solely for the
support of educational programs and shall be maintained in a separate
account for that purpose. No district shall be responsible for the tuition of
any child admitted by the State to a State facility after the last school day
prior to October 16 of the prebudget year.
When the State makes a determination as to who is responsible for the child's
education and/or a determination about the "district of residency," it is entitled to a
presumption of correctness. Bd. of Educ. of S. River v. Dep't of Educ., EDU 10117-98,
Initial Decision (November 1, 2000) http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html. It is
well established that when a local school board contests a DOR determination, the local
board bears the burden of proving that the determination was in error. Bd. of Educ. of
Bradley 	Beach 	v. 	Dep't 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	4975-99, 	Comm'r 	(July 	3, 	2000).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html
In 	this 	matter, 	North 	Bergen 	argues 	that 	the 	student’s 	present 	district 	of
residence must be determined by the DOE by October 16 of that school year. The
regulations do not state this. 	The regulations state that the district of residence is
determined by the residence of the parents on October 16. In this matter it is stipulated
that J.P.’s mother lived in the District on October 16, 2019. 	It is not disputed that DOE
informed North Bergen that it was the district of residence for J.P. in March 2021. There
is no provision in the regulation that states the DOE must inform a District that it is the
district of residence for a student by October 16 th of that year. North Bergen argued that
the doctrine of laches should be invoked since the DOE did not inform North Bergen
that it was J.P.’s. present district of residence in 2019-2020 until March 2021.
The court in Secaucus Town v. Jersey City, 19 N.J. Tax 10, 27`stated:
In Lavin v. Board of Education of Hackensack, 90 N.J. 145, (1982), the
Supreme Court defined laches as "'such neglect or omission to assert a
right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great,
and other circumstances 	causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates
as a bar in a court of equity.'" Id. at 151, 447 A.2d 516 (quoting from 2

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
7
Pomeroy Equity Jurisprudence § 419 at 171-72 (5th ed.1941)). The Court
then articulated the following factors as relevant to a claim of laches:
The length of delay, reasons for delay, and changing conditions of either or both parties
during the delay are the most important factors that a court considers and weighs. The
length of the delay alone or in conjunction with the other elements may result in laches.
It is because the central issue is whether it is inequitable to permit the claim to be
enforced that generally the change in conditions or relations of the parties coupled with
the passage of time becomes the primary determinant. . . . Inequity, more often than
not, will turn on whether a party has been misled to his harm by the delay. Id. at 152-53
The court stated: equitable estoppel will be applied in the appropriate circumstances
[against 	a 	governmental 	entity] 	unless 	the 	application 	would 	'prejudice 	essential
governmental functions.'" Middletown Tp. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n., Local No. 124
v. Middletown Tp., supra, 162 N.J. at 367, 744 A.2d 649. The same 	principle applies to
laches. East Orange v. Livingston Tp., 102 N.J. Super. 512, 522, 246 A.2d 178 (Law
Div.1968), aff'd, 54 N.J. 96, 253 A.2d 546 (1969) ID at 20-21
Secaucus Town v. Jersey City, 19 N.J. Tax 10, 27`
The Court has stated of the doctrine of laches:
That doctrine is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right
when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in
exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party. In re Kietur, 332
N.J. Super. 18, 28, 752 A.2d 799, 805 (App.Div.2000) (citing County of
Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105, 707 A.2d 958, 970 (1998)). Laches
may only be enforced when the delaying party had sufficient opportunity to
assert the right in the proper forum and the prejudiced party acted in good
faith believing that the right had been abandoned. Dorchester Manor v.
Borough of New Milford, 287 N.J. Super. 163, 172, 670 A.2d 600, 604
(Law Div.1994), aff'd, 287 N.J. Super. 114, 670 A.2d 576 (App.Div.1996).
The time constraints for the application of laches "are not fixed but are
characteristically flexible." Lavin v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145, 151, 447
A.2d 516, 519 (1982). The key factors to be considered in deciding
whether to apply the doctrine are the length of the delay, the reasons for
the delay, and the "changing conditions of either or both parties during the
delay." Id. at 152, 447 A.2d at 520. The core equitable concern in applying
laches is whether a party has been harmed by the delay. Id. at 152-53,
447 A.2d at 519-20.
Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-181
In this matter the regulation does not state the date when the DOE must inform
the district that it is the district of residence for a student by a specific time. The DOE did

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
8
not know that M.P lived in North Bergen beginning in May 2019 until it was informed by
the Division of Children and Families on or about March 1, 2021. 	DOE informed North
Bergen that it was responsible for J.P.’s educational costs for 2019-2020 school year on
March 29, 2021. There was a gap of over a year before DOE became aware that J.P.’s
district of residence for the 2019-2020 school year.
I CONCLUDE Since M.P. resided in North Bergin beginning in May 2019, that
North Bergin was the District of residence for J.P. for the 2019-2020 school year.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary decision be
and is hereby GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is
DENIED.
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 00807-22
9
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.
July 21, 2023
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 21, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	July 21, 2023
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00807-22
10
EXHIBITS
from stipulated Facts
Joint
J-A Letter from the Department of Education to North Bergen Dated May 17, 2019
J-B Lease Signed by M.P. for Occupancy in North Bergen signed on April 26, 2019
J-C Division of Children and Families CP&P 25-65 From for J.P. Dated March 1, 2021
J-D Letter from the Department of Education to North Bergen Dated March 29, 2021
J-E Letter from Department of Education to North Bergen Dated November 23, 2021