| Matter of Williamsburg & Greenpoint Parents: Our Pub.Schs.! v Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N.Y. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05690 [130 AD3d 638] |
| July 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Williamsburg and Greenpoint Parents:Our Public Schools! et al., Appellant, v Board of Trustees, State University ofNew York, Respondent, and Citizens of the World Charter School New York 1 et al.,Intervenors-Respondents. |
Arthur Z. Schwartz, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecilia C. Chang andClaude S. Platton of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jay P. Lefkowitz, Devora W. Allon,and Samara L. Penn of counsel), for intervenors-respondents-respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Boardof Trustees of the State University of New York, dated June 25, 2012, approving theissuance of charters to Citizens of the World Charter School New York 1 and Citizens ofthe World Charter School New York 2, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated March 5, 2013, which denied theamended petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to therespondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On January 3, 2012, the Charter Schools Institute (hereinafter the Institute), an armof the State University of New York (hereinafter SUNY), issued a request for proposalsfor new charter schools in the State. The Institute's employees serve as staff to the SUNYBoard of Trustees (hereinafter SUNY Trustees) on matters pertaining to charterschools.
On January 19, 2012, Citizens of the World Charter Schools (hereinafter CWCS)responded with letters of intent that it would apply for two charter schools in CommunitySchool District 14 in Brooklyn. On February 29, 2012, CWCS submitted applications forthe two proposed charter schools. Both the letters of intent and the applications detailedand provided support for CWCS's community outreach, including numerous meetingswith parents and other stakeholders, an online survey for parents, and informationalmaterials sent to local organizations, pre-schools, and Head Start programs. Theapplications contained information regarding solicitation of community input andincorporation of comments into the proposals. They provided a target enrollment of 126students per school in the first year and attached more than 250 petitions from parentsexpressing interest in sending their children to the proposed schools.
[*2] The Institute posted on its website a list of all activeproposals and notified public schools in the area and the Chancellor of the New YorkCity Department of Education (hereinafter NYCDOE) of its applications. The NYCDOEheld a public hearing on the applications on April 19, 2012. On May 22, 2012, theChancellor of the NYCDOE recommended the schools for approval. The Institute issuedfindings and recommendations dated June 15, 2012, recommending the schools forapproval. On June 25, 2012, the SUNY Trustees voted to authorize the charters, findingthat the proposals rigorously demonstrated that the applicant conducted the requiredpublic outreach to solicit community input and address comments, and the proposals metthe requirements of the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998, as amended (hereinafterthe Charter Schools Act). On July 16, 2012, the Board of Regents approved thecharters.
The petitioners, a group of parents of children in public schools in CommunitySchool District 14 and an organization they founded to oppose the subject charterschools, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the SUNYTrustees' determination authorizing the charters. The amended petition alleged that theSUNY Trustees authorized the charters in violation of Education Law§§ 2851 (2) (q), 2852 (9-a) (b) (ii) and (2) (a), in that CWCS failed todemonstrate adequate community support, outreach, or input, and therefore, the chartersshould be voided. The SUNY Trustees answered the amended petition, and the charterschools intervened in the proceeding and submitted an answer. The Supreme Courtdenied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioners appeal.
Judicial review of administrative agency determinations such as the one underconsideration here is limited to whether the action taken by the agency was illegal,arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matterof Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; Matter of Gjerlow v Graap, 43 AD3d 1165, 1167 [2007];Matter of Halperin v City ofNew Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 771 [2005]).
Contrary to the charter schools' contention, the petitioners properly brought thisproceeding to review the SUNY Trustees' determination pursuant to CPLR article 78(see CPLR 7802 [a]; 7803 [3]). Moreover, as parents of public school students inthe relevant Community School District, they had standing to challenge thedetermination (see generallyMatter of Schwartz v Morgenthau, 7 NY3d 427, 432 [2006]; Society ofPlastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 775 [1991]).
In authorizing the issuance of charters to the subject schools, the SUNY Trusteeswere required to find that the proposed schools met all requirements of the CharterSchool Act (see Education Law § 2852 [2] [a]). Given therepresentations and support therefor contained in CWCS's applications, the SUNYTrustees' determination that CWCS met the statutory requirements with regard toevidence "of adequate community support for and interest in the charter school sufficientto allow the school to reach its anticipated enrollment" (Education Law§ 2851 [2] [q]), and public outreach to solicit community input and addresscomments received from the impacted community concerning the educational andprogrammatic needs of students (see Education Law § 2852 [9-a][b] [ii]; Matter of Norris vWalcott, 36 Misc 3d 711, 727-728 [2012]), was, insofar as relevant here, notarbitrary and capricious. As the SUNY Trustees and the charter schools correctlycontend, majority community support is not required by the Charter Schools Act(see Education Law § 2851 [2] [q]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding. Dillon, J.P.,Leventhal, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.