United Jewish Cmty. of Blooming Grove v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 02 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 534406 |
| Parties | In the Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Washingtonville Central School District et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Calendar Date: April 27, 2022.
Shaw Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Poughkeepsie (Mark C Rushfield of counsel), for Washington Central School District, appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Beezly J. Kiernan of counsel), for New York State Education Department, appellant.
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Robert S. Rosborough IV of counsel), for respondents.
New York State School Boards Association, Latham (Jay Worona of counsel), for New York State School Boards Association, amicus curiae.
Bienstock PLLC, New York City (Martin Bienstock of counsel), for Agudath Israel of America, amicus curiae.
Before: Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Colangelo, Ceresia and McShan, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered November 18, 2021 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, among other things, granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment.
Petitioner United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation that provides services to Jewish families in Orange County. Petitioners Joel Stern and Yitzchok Ekstein reside within respondent Washingtonville Central School District (hereinafter the District) and send their children to nonpublic schools in the Village of Kiryas Joel, Orange County. Although the District provides school bus transportation to resident students who are enrolled in nonpublic schools, like Stern's and Ekstein's children are, it does so only on days when public schools are in session. Given that nonpublic schools, at times, observe different holidays and school breaks than public schools, there are days throughout the school year when the District does not provide transportation to nonpublic school students even though their schools are in session. The District's policy on this issue is consistent with guidance posted on the website of respondent State Education Department (hereinafter SED) - specifically, an online handbook on transportation of students enrolled in nonpublic schools.
On two occasions during the 2020-2021 school year, counsel for petitioners wrote to the District, requesting that it provide bus transportation for students of nonpublic schools in Kiryas Joel on days when those schools were in session but the public schools were closed. After those requests were denied by the District, petitioners commenced the instant hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking, among other things, a declaration that central school districts are statutorily required to transport nonpublic school students on all days that their schools are open and that SED's guidance to the contrary is invalid, together with a permanent injunction preventing the District from denying transportation to nonpublic school students on those days. Petitioners sought, and Supreme Court granted, a preliminary injunction compelling the District to provide the requested transportation at the commencement of the 2021-2022 school year. However, the preliminary injunction was automatically stayed when respondents appealed from the order granting it (see CPLR 5519 [a] [1]), and this Court thereafter, among other things, denied petitioners' motion to vacate the automatic stay (see 2021 NY Slip Op 73586[U]).
Following joinder of issue, petitioners moved for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment claims, the District and SED opposed, and SED cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition/complaint. Supreme Court, among other things, granted petitioners' motion, denied SED's cross motion, issued the requested permanent injunction, declared that the District is required to provide transportation for all nonpublic school students on all days that their schools are open, and further declared that SED's guidance to the contrary is null and void. Respondents appeal. Because we find that school districts outside New York Cityare not statutorily obligated to transport nonpublic school students on days when public schools are closed, we reverse.
This case turns upon interpretation of Education Law § 3635, which sets forth the obligations of school districts to provide resident children with transportation to public and nonpublic schools. In matters of statutory interpretation, our "primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (Matter of Walsh v New York State Comptroller, 34 N.Y.3d 520, 524 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Noting that "the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof" (Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583 [1998]; accord Matter of DeVera v Elia, 32 N.Y.3d 423, 435 [2018]). As is relevant here, Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) states that "[s]ufficient transportation facilities... shall be provided by the school district for all the children residing within the school district to and from the school they legally attend, who are in need of such transportation because of the remoteness of the school to the child or for the promotion of the best interest of such children."
While this subsection contains language as to what must be provided ("[s]ufficient transportation facilities"), for whom ("all the children residing within the school district"), and where ("to and from the school they legally attend"), absent from the plain language of the subsection is any explicit direction as to when such transportation must be provided. One interpretation, put forward by petitioners and adopted by Supreme Court, is that all children must be transported to and from school on all of the days that their school is open, with nonpublic school students treated no differently than public school students in that regard. Respondents, on the other hand, interpret the subsection as requiring only "sufficient" transportation, which is achieved by providing equal transportation services, on the same days of the year, to nonpublic and public school students alike. Inasmuch as the statute is silent as to when transportation must occur, and acknowledging the parties' conflicting interpretations - each of which is at least arguably persuasive, with both sides claiming that their interpretation treats all children equitably - we find that the legislative intent on this point cannot be gleaned from the statutory text alone, and therefore an examination of the legislative history is required (see Matter of Shannon, 25 N.Y.3d 345, 352 [2015]; People v Ballman, 15 N.Y.3d 68, 72 [2010 ]).
The above-quoted statutory language has existed in its current form since 1939 (see L 1939, ch 465). In 1985, the Legislature adopted a separate subsection, Education Law § 3635 (2-a), the purpose of which was to "provide for transportation to nonpublic schools on a limited number of days upon which public schools are scheduled to be closed" (State Ed Dept Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 19). However, as enacted, this subsection applies only to cities with populations in excess of one million, i.e., New York City. Nonpublic schools in New York City may choose, from a limited list, up to five (or, in certain years, up to 10) days on which their students will receive transportation services even though the public schools are scheduled to be closed (see Education Law § 3635 [2-a]). This list includes, among others, the week of Labor Day, certain Jewish holidays, and the week between Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but not Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays. [1] In our view, contrary to petitioners' contention, both the legislative history of this amendment and the plain wording of it - namely, the use of the language "provide for" (Education Law § 3635 [2-a]; State Ed Dept Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 19) - indicate that its purpose was to expand the number of required transportation days, and not to limit a previously unrestricted transportation obligation.
When the Legislature first considered this amendment to the statute, the original version of the bill contained an additional requirement that central school districts outside New York City also provide transportation to nonpublic school students on days that public schools are closed, albeit for only two days per year, rather than the five or 10 days required in New York City (see State Ed Dept Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 20; Letter from Counsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs, State Ed Dept to Governor, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 18). Insofar as the proposed bill pertained to central school districts it was strongly opposed by New York State United Teachers and New York State School Boards Association, both of which opined that it would impose significant financial and administrative burdens upon central school districts and interfere with negotiated contracts (see Mem in Opposition, NY State School Bds Assn, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 23; Letter in Opposition, NY State United Teachers, Bill Jacket, L 1985, ch 902 at 26-27). By way of example, the New York State School Boards Association...
To continue reading
Request your trial