Cario v. Sobol

Decision Date24 May 1990
Citation157 A.D.2d 172,557 N.Y.S.2d 592
Parties, 61 Ed. Law Rep. 698 In the Matter of Peter J. CARIO et al., Individually and as Members of the Board of Education of Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School District, Appellants-Respondents, v. Thomas SOBOL, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Block, Amelkin & Hamburger (Richard Hamburger, of counsel), Smithtown, for appellants-respondents.

Robert E. Diaz (Charles E. O'Brien, of counsel), Albany, for Thomas Sobol, as Com'r of Educ. of the State of N.Y., respondent-appellant.

Pelletreau & Pelletreau (Kevin A. Seaman and Vanessa M. Sheehan, of counsel), Patchogue, for Mount Sinai Union Free School Dist., respondent-appellant.

Before WEISS, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.

MERCURE, Justice.

Respondent Commissioner of Education is authorized pursuant to Education Law § 314 to periodically review and update the Master Plan for School District Reorganization in New York (hereinafter the State Plan) and to "make recommendations for school district reorganization so as to assure the most efficient and economical provision of education facilities" (Education Law § 314[1]. As of 1958, the State Plan provided, as is relevant here, for a proposed central school district consisting of the Comsewogue, Mt. Sinai, Setauket, Port Jefferson, Miller Place, Shoreham, Stony Brook, Rocky Point and Wading River school districts in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County. Except for amendments in 1965, to allow for the merger of the Setauket and Stony Brook school districts, and 1972, to allow for the merger of the Shoreham and Wading River school districts, the State Plan has remained unchanged. Education Law § 3602(16)(c) * provides an economic incentive for reorganization by permitting school districts having school tax rates above the 90th percentile of all school districts in the State to receive "high tax aid" for the school year 1980 and thereafter if it maintained a home school for grades K-8 during the school year 1979-1980 and has indicated to the Commissioner that it is willing to reorganize, although no district has been willing to join in reorganization with such district.

Following unsuccessful efforts to induce the Mt. Sinai school district to merge with the Comsewogue school district, petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, inter alia, to compel the Commissioner to revise the State Plan to provide for the merger of Comsewogue and Mt. Sinai, and for a determination that Mt. Sinai is not entitled to high tax aid pursuant to Education Law § 3602(16)(c) and that Comsewogue is entitled to such aid. Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent of enjoining Mt. Sinai from receiving any additional high tax aid and denied all other requested relief. Petitioners and respondents cross-appeal and Mt. Sinai also appeals from Supreme Court's denial of its motion to renew and/or reargue.

Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that revision of the State Plan pursuant to Education Law § 314 need only be made as the Commissioner deems necessary and, accordingly, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Commissioner (see, Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 539, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588; cf., Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 568, 572, 466 N.Y.S.2d 277, 453 N.E.2d 506). Moreover, petitioners' remedy is governed exclusively by Education Law § 314(3), which provides that "[a]ny school district scheduled for reorganization, and not reorganized, desiring a change in the established plan of reorganization * * * may petition to the [C]ommissioner for a formal public hearing stating the changes desired with the supporting papers, data and information * * * upon the motion of a majority of the voters of such school district, present and voting at an annual or special school district meeting or election adopting a resolution directing the school board or trustees to file such petition" (Education Law § 314[3][a]. It is fundamental that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies bars an action for judicial review (see, Matter of Fahey v. Axelrod, 152 A.D.2d 867, 868-869, 544 N.Y.S.2d 76; Aldrich v. Pattison, 107 A.D.2d 258, 267-268, 486 N.Y.S.2d 23).

Turning to the issues concerning the respective school districts' entitlement to high tax aid pursuant to Education Law § 3602(16)(c), we note as a threshold matter our view that petitioners had standing, as individual taxpayers under State Finance Law § 123-b, to challenge the disbursement of State funds to Mt. Sinai. Addressing the merits, we agree with Supreme Court that neither Comsewogue nor Mt. Sinai is eligible for the high tax aid. Comsewogue is ineligible because it has at all relevant times maintained a home school for grades K-12, and the statute by its clear terms applies only to school districts maintaining a home school for grades K-8. We reject Comsewogue's contention that section 3602(16)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Grumet v. Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 1992
    ... ... We note that plaintiffs' reliance on New York State School Bds. Assn. v. Sobol, 168 A.D.2d 188, 570 N.Y.S.2d 716, aff'd 79 N.Y.2d 333, 582 N.Y.S.2d 960, 591 N.E.2d 1146, is misplaced, for the issue of the [187 A.D.2d 20] ... will receive State funding and, therefore, the constitutionality of that statute can be challenged in a citizen-taxpayer action (see, Matter of Cario v. Sobol, 157 A.D.2d 172, 175, 557 N.Y.S.2d 592). The fact that the action was discontinued as to the State officials when the two school districts ... ...
  • State v. Syracuse Rigging Co. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 16, 1998
    ... ... the disposition of plaintiff's summary judgment motion, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's denial of the motion (see, Matter of Cario v. Sobol, 157 A.D.2d 172, 176, 557 N.Y.S.2d 592) ...         ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs ... ...
  • Salvador v. New York State Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 12, 1996
    ... ... since plaintiffs conceded that they had "general knowledge" of its existence prior to their commencement of this action (see, Matter of Cario v. Sobol, 157 A.D.2d 172, 176, 557 N.Y.S.2d 592; McGovern v. Tatten, supra, at 779, 623 N.Y.S.2d 370; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 ... ...
  • Barnes (Council 82, AFSCME on Behalf of Monroe), Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 15, 1998
    ... ... , 809, 628 N.Y.S.2d 876) and, in any event, the psychiatrist's testimony would not have altered the outcome of the proceeding (see, Matter of Cario v. Sobol, 157 A.D.2d 172, 176, 557 N.Y.S.2d 592; Albanese v. Stevens, 148 A.D.2d 805, 806, 538 N.Y.S.2d 384) ...         We have reviewed ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT