NINA L. CHAVIS - v. NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5862-07T15862-07T1

NINA L. CHAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CRIMINAL

HISTORY REVIEW,

Respondent-Respondent.

_____________________________________________

 

Submitted April 21, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Winkelstein and Chambers.

On appeal from a final decision of the State Board of Education, Docket No. 248-9/07.

Law Offices of Ned P. Rogovoy, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Ned P. Rogovoy, on the brief).

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joyce D. Atkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Nina L. Chavis appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Education concluding that she is disqualified from teaching in the New Jersey Public Schools by operation of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.

Our review of an administrative agency action is limited. In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996). The administrative agency is presumed to have acted reasonably. In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994); Bd. of Educ. of E. Windsor Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 172 N.J. Super. 547, 554 (App. Div. 1980). An agency's decision will be sustained unless appellant makes "a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007); see also Bd. of Educ. of E. Windsor Reg'l Sch. Dist., supra, 172 N.J. Super. at 552. In this inquiry, we look at whether the agency followed the law in light of the express or implied legislative policies involved, whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and "whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." In re Herman, supra, 192 N.J. at 28 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)); see also Bd. of Educ. of E. Windsor Reg'l Sch. Dist., supra, 172 N.J. Super. at 552.

After a careful review of the record and arguments of the parties and in light of the standard of review noted above governing our decision, we affirm substantially for the reason set forth in the Commissioner's decision.

Affirmed.

 

In reaching this decision, the Commissioner disagreed with the conclusions of the administrative law judge who found that the facts presented in petitioner's case did not fall within the prohibitions in the statute.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5862-07T1

May 13, 2009