| Matter of R.B. v Department of Educ. of the City ofN.Y. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01511 [115 AD3d 440] |
| March 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of R.B. et al.,Appellants, v Department of Education of the City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), forrespondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August7, 2013, which denied the petition seeking, inter alia, a declaration that respondents'methodology for selection to the Gifted and Talented Program was arbitrary andcapricious, and mandating a particular methodology and removal of respondents' siblingpriority policy, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Dismissal of the proceeding is warranted because petitioners did not exhaust theiradministrative remedies provided in Education Law § 310 (7), and they failed todemonstrate either the futility of pursuing such remedy or any other exception to theexhaustion doctrine (seeMulgrew v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 88 AD3d72, 80-81 [1st Dept 2011]). "[A]ny dispute concerning the proper placement of achild in a particular educational program can best be resolved by seeking review of suchprofessional educational judgment through the administrative processes provided bystatute" (Hoffman v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 121, 127 [1979]).
In any event, respondents' admission processes relating to the subject program has arational basis. Regarding the sibling priority policy, that policy's purpose was to relievethe financial and logistical burdens of families with two or more children who mightotherwise have to attend different schools in different parts of the City. As to thepercentile-ranking methodology, respondents reasonably explained that this methodologywas fairer and gives more students who are gifted a chance to be in the lottery to obtain aspot in the program.
The sibling priority policy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the NewYork State Constitution. Respondents demonstrated that the policy "rationally furtherssome legitimate, articulated state purpose" (Archbishop Walsh High School v SectionVI of N.Y. State [*2]Pub. High School AthleticAssn., 88 NY2d 131, 136 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Gische, JJ. [PriorCase History: 2013 NY Slip Op 31771(U).]