Rome School Dist. v. Grifasi, CA2005-001823

• Decision Date: 28 October 2005
• Docket Number: CA2005-001823
• Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 25525,806 N.Y.S.2d 381,10 Misc.3d 1034
• Parties: In the Matter of ROME CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. MARK J. GRIFASI, JR., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

10 Misc.3d 1034

806 N.Y.S.2d 381

2005 NY Slip Op 25525

In the Matter of ROME CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. MARK J. GRIFASI, JR., Respondent.

CA2005-001823

Supreme Court, Oneida County.

October 28, 2005.

Diane Martin-Grande, Rome, for respondent.

Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett & Reitz, P.C., East Syracuse (Miles G. Lawlor of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ANTHONY F. SHAHEEN, J.

The court heard oral argument on October 12, 2005 concerning Mr. Grifasi's application for a judicial subpoena duces tecum directing the Rome City School District to produce all videotapes and/or audiotapes depicting the altercation which was the subject of Mr. Grifasi's disciplinary hearing on March 31, 2005. At that time, the court reserved decision, and requested the School District's counsel to submit information as to whether Hearing Officer Donald E. Budmen, Esq. saw the videotape in question at any time.

The court has now received an affidavit from Hearing Officer Donald E. Budmen, Esq. stating that it was his understanding that a School District videotape captured images of Mr. Grifasi and other students involved in an altercation on March 28, 2005, along with other students who were in the vicinity of the altercation. Hearing Officer Budmen states that he did not at any time, either before or after the hearing, view this tape. Rather, he asserts that his decision to recommend Mr. Grifasi's suspension for the remainder of the 2004-2005 school year was based solely on the testimony of a district teacher, the testimony of Mr. Grifasi including his admission to striking a fellow student, and the documentary evidence introduced at the hearing. The court has also reviewed the letter from counsel for the School District in support of the School District's position that this videotape constitutes an educational record which they are prohibited from disclosing, as well as the letter from Mr. Grifasi's counsel wherein she reiterates Mr. Grifasi's position that this tape is not an educational record within the meaning of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and that in any event the tape has already been disclosed to various entities including the Rome Police Department.

The court has again reviewed the submissions of the parties on this application, and has given due consideration to the parties' respective arguments at motion term. After due deliberation, the court renders the following decision:

The School District is correct that FERPA does not provide for a private right of action; rather, it provides federal government funding will be cut off if there is a violation of FERPA. In the application before this court, Mark J. Grifasi, Jr. is not commencing a private action against the School District for money damages; rather, he is petitioning this court for the release of the videotape for purposes of appealing the School District's determination to suspend him for the balance of the 2004-2005 school year.

It is uncontested that Mark Grifasi, Jr. was involved in an incident at Rome Free Academy, and that he and a number of other students were recorded on a School District video camera. The School District admits that this videotape was viewed by a number of persons including officials of the School District as part of their investigation of this altercation, members of the Rome Police Department who used it as evidence to commence a criminal proceeding against Mark in Rome City Court, the School District's counsel, and prior counsel for Mr. Grifasi, Jr. who filed a notice of claim on his behalf. Now, after disclosing this videotape to these...