| Matter of Claudia E. v Ryan |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03170 [61 AD3d 865] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Claudia E., an Infant,Respondent, v Dennis Ryan, Appellant. |
—[*1] William A. Gomes, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the DeerPark Union Free School District suspending the infant petitioner from school for a period of fivedays, and to expunge the suspension from the infant petitioner's records, the appeal is from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated January 14, 2008, whichgranted the petition and annulled the determination.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The infant petitioner was a fifth-grade student at a school within the Deer Park Union FreeSchool District (hereinafter the District). In March 2007 it was discovered that she possessed anitem on school grounds which resulted in a finding that the infant petitioner was in "possessionof a weapon." Accordingly, she was suspended from school for a period of five days. After ahearing, the District's Superintendent of Schools found the infant petitioner "guilty of thecharges," and thereafter, that decision was upheld by the Board of Education of the District. Theinfant petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, inter alia, to review theDistrict's determination.
Judicial review is limited here to a determination of whether the administrative decision isarbitrary or capricious, or lacks a rational basis (see Slesinger v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City [*2]of N.Y., 39 AD3d 246 [2007]). The infant petitioner iscorrect that a strict reading of the District's "Code of Conduct" (hereinafter the Code) does notprohibit the possession of the item in question on school grounds. Significantly, the item at issuewas never used in any way by the infant petitioner (cf. Matter of Mandell v Board of Educ. ofSyosset Cent. School Dist., 243 AD2d 479, 480 [1997]). Accordingly, under the particularfacts of this case, the District's decision to suspend the infant petitioner lacked a rational basis,since there was no evidence that she violated any provision of the Code so as to warrantdisciplinary action.
The District's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Florio andBalkin, JJ., concur.