D.T., on Behalf of the Minor Child, N.T. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOMERSET COUNTY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3629-04T13629-04T1

D.T., on Behalf of the Minor Child, N.T.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

and

M.T., on Behalf of the Minor Child, N.T.,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL

SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOMERSET COUNTY,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Argued May 2, 2006 - Decided May 12, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from Final Decision of the State Board of Education, Docket Nos. 45-03,

9-04, 24-04, 25-04, 26-04, 27-04, 28-04,

29-04.

D.T., appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Daniel C. Soriano, Jr., argued the cause

for respondent Board of Education of Bridgewater-Raritan (Soriano & Soriano, attorneys; Mr. Soriano, on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent State Board of Education (Marta N. Kozlowska, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in

lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioners D.T. and M.T. appeal from a final decision of the State Board of Education dated February 4, 2005, dismissing eight consolidated appeals concerning disciplinary actions taken against their son, N.T.

The relevant facts are as follows. D.T. and M.T. filed a series of appeals seeking to challenge disciplinary action imposed on their son by the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District. The appeals were consolidated and petitioners filed a brief in support of their appeal, but they failed to serve the brief on the School District's attorney. They claimed that they mailed a copy to the School District offices, but the District contended that it never received the papers. The Director of the State Board Appeals Office repeatedly directed petitioners to serve their brief on the School District's attorney, and petitioners repeatedly refused to do so. Hence, their appeal was dismissed.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the petitioners' arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the February 4, 2005 written decision of the State Board of Education. We add the following comments.

The Administrative Procedure Rules, which apply to all State agency contested cases, require that briefs be served on the opposing party's attorney:

Any paper filed shall be served in the manner provided by (a) above upon all attorneys or other representatives and upon all parties appearing pro se, either before filing or promptly thereafter unless otherwise provided by order.

[N.J.A.C. 1:1-7.1(b).]

The regulation on which petitioners rely, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-8.1, is inapplicable because that rule only applies to appeals concerning a child's entitlement to attend school; these appeals concerned petitioner's son's suspensions from riding the school bus and possibly other issues, but not his exclusion from school.

 
Although petitioners were representing themselves, they were required to follow the applicable procedural rules like any other litigants. They were also obligated to follow the State Board's directions with respect to perfecting their appeal. They repeatedly refused to do so. Their appeal was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3629-04T1

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 12, 2006