HIGHLAND PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION v. DAVID C. HESPE
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3890-14T1
HIGHLAND PARK BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Appellant,
v.
DAVID C. HESPE, COMMISSIONER OF
EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION and HATIKVAH
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL,
Respondents.
__________________________________________
EAST BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Intervenor-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Argued November 8, 2017 – Decided January 24, 2018
Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll and Leone.
On appeal from the Commissioner of Education.
David B. Rubin argued the cause for appellant
(David B. Rubin, PC and The Busch Law Group,
LLC, attorneys; David B. Rubin and Douglas M.
Silvestro, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Giacobbe argued the cause for
intervenor-appellant (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri
Jacobs LLC, attorneys; Matthew J. Giacobbe,
of counsel and on the brief, Jessica V. Henry,
on the brief).
Jennifer J. McGruther, Deputy Attorney
General, argued the cause for respondents
Commissioner of Education and State Board of
Education (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Jennifer J. McGruther, on the brief).
Thomas O. Johnston argued the cause for
respondent Hatikvah International Academy
Charter School (Johnston Law Firm, LLC,
attorneys; Thomas O. Johnston and Jignesh J.
Shah, on the brief).
Duane Morris LLP, attorneys for amicus curiae
New Jersey Charter Schools Association (Paul
P. Josephson, of counsel and on the brief).
Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs LLC, attorneys
for amicus curiae Manalapan-Englishtown
Regional Board of Education (Matthew J.
Giacobbe, of counsel and on the brief; Jessica
V. Henry, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Highland Park Board of Education (Highland Park) appeals from
a final decision of the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner)
dated March 19, 2015, which approved an application by Hatikvah
International Academy Charter School (Hatikvah) to amend its
charter to expand its grades from kindergarten through grade five
to kindergarten through grade eight. We affirm.
2 A-3890-14T1
I.
We briefly summarize the pertinent facts. In March 2009,
Hatikvah applied to the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE)
for the issuance of a charter pursuant to the Charter School
Program Act of 1995 (the CSPA or the Act).
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to
-18. In its application, Hatikvah indicated that its proposed
charter school would include only grades kindergarten through
grade five during the initial four-year charter period, beginning
with grades kindergarten through grade two, with the addition of
one grade level each year thereafter. Hatikvah stated that its
goal was to have the school eventually educate students in grades
kindergarten through grade eight.
Hatikvah's initial charter period ended in June 2014, and in
March 2014, Hatikvah submitted an application to the NJDOE for a
five-year charter renewal. In that application, Hatikvah also
sought approval to expand the school to include grades six through
eight. The Commissioner granted the renewal but denied the request
to expand the school's grades due to a decline in the school's
academic performance in the 2012-2013 school year. Hatikvah's
current charter expires in June 2019.
In November 2014, Hatikvah submitted an application to amend
its charter to add grades six through eight and increase the number
of students in kindergarten through grade five. In support of its
3 A-3890-14T1
application, Hatikvah submitted a resolution of its board of
trustees and a rationale statement, which detailed improvements
Hatikvah's students made from 2013 to 2014, and compared the
academic performance of its students to the performance of students
in all New Jersey public and charter schools.
Hatikvah's rationale statement also noted that progress had
been made in its quest to become a fully-certified "International
Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme." According to Hatikvah, the
program "utilizes six transdisciplinary themes as its framework
for exploration and study," and requires a multi-year pre-
evaluation period before a school may be labelled an International
Baccalaureate school.
The East Brunswick Board of Education (East Brunswick),
Highland Park, the Borough of Highland Park (Borough), and the
South River Board of Education (South River) submitted statements
to the Commissioner opposing Hatikvah's application. The
Commissioner also received a joint letter from three members of
the State Legislature opposing the application.
In its statement, East Brunswick asserted that Hatikvah's
proposed expansion would be unfair to East Brunswick because it
"would provide no benefit to the East Brunswick Township taxpayers,
residents, [or] students . . . and would jeopardize the
[district's] ability to maintain its educational programs and meet
4 A-3890-14T1
its contractual obligations." East Brunswick also asserted that
Hatikvah "falsely state[d]" that the proposed expansion would not
have any financial impact on East Brunswick's taxpayers.
East Brunswick stated that if Hatikvah's expansion were
allowed, it would require East Brunswick's taxpayers to pay more
than $1 million in addition to the district's current charter
school budget. According to East Brunswick, this would be forty-
two percent of the district's allowed two-percent annual budget
increase. East Brunswick claimed that this expenditure would
"seriously jeopardize [East Brunswick]'s ability to meet its
contractual obligations and maintain and promote competitive
educational offerings."
In its statement, Highland Park noted that only fifty-four
percent of the students then attending Hatikvah were residents of
East Brunswick. According to Highland Park, Hatikvah had become a
regional or state-wide school with students from numerous
different school districts and five different counties throughout
the State. Highland Park stated that this was contrary to
Hatikvah's charter.
Highland Park also asserted that it was responsible for paying
tuition for Highland Park students to attend Hatikvah and three
other charter schools, and these tuition payments amounted to
$562,473 for the 2014-2015 school year. According to Highland
5 A-3890-14T1
Park, this was twenty-one percent more than the district's allowed
two-percent budget cap for the year, "making it difficult for the
[d]istrict to meet its contractual obligations and maintain and
promote competitive educational offerings." Highland Park stated
that expansion of Hatikvah would place an increased burden on
Highland Park's taxpayers.
In opposing the application, the Borough stated that if
permitted to expand, Hatikvah would be seeking additional students
from districts other than East Brunswick, including Highland Park.
The Borough asserted that Hatikvah viewed its students as a
commodity and a source of income to advance its business. The
Borough also asserted that it was "deeply concerned about the
impact of the possible expansion of Hatikvah on [its] entire tax
base."
In its statement, South River stated that in the 2015-2016
fiscal year, the NJDOE had required the district to budget $191,300
for South River students to attend Hatikvah. South River also
stated that the State-mandated diversion of funds to Hatikvah
threatened the competitiveness of its "educational offerings
through the reduction of teaching staff and technology and program
preparation." South River estimated that increased enrollment at
Hatikvah would require South River to pay an additional $48,000
6 A-3890-14T1
in 2015-2016, which was seventeen percent of its allowed annual
two-percent budget increase.
In their joint letter, the legislators indicated that they
were writing on behalf of the "children and districts of Middlesex
County." They stated that despite Hatikvah's claims, there is no
"excess community demand" because the school "needs to recruit
from [twenty-two] other districts, across multiple counties, to
fill even their current allowable 300 student enrollment."
The legislators asserted that the proposed expansion of
Hatikvah's enrollment would "seriously jeopardize" the ability of
the East Brunswick public school district "to meet its contractual
obligations and maintain and promote competitive offerings." The
legislators also stated that Hatikvah's expansion would have an
adverse impact on the Highland Park public school district.
On March 19, 2015, the Commissioner issued a final decision
on Hatikvah's application. The Commissioner denied Hatikvah's
request to expand the number of students in kindergarten through
grade five, but granted the request to add grades six through
eight. In his decision, the Commissioner noted that he had reviewed
all of the "evidence collected" and "all [of the] public
correspondence and comments" before approving Hatikvah's request
to expand its operations to include grades six through eight.
7 A-3890-14T1
The Commissioner found that Hatikvah's academic performance
had improved from the 2012-2013 school year to the 2013-2014 school
year. The Commissioner stated that these improvements placed
Hatikvah's students in the ninety-sixth percentile in language
arts literacy and eighty-seventh percentile in mathematics, in
comparison to other schools across the State. The Commissioner
also stated that the addition of grades six through eight would
allow Hatikvah to "fulfill its mission to offer a middle-year
International Baccalaureate Programme and continue the development
of the Hebrew language proficiency model for students currently
attending the school."
Thereafter, Highland Park filed its notice of appeal. We
granted East Brunswick's motion to intervene in the appeal. We
also granted motions by the Manalapan-Englishtown Board of
Education (Manalapan-Englishtown), and the New Jersey Charter
School Association (NJCSA) for leave to participate as amici
curiae.
II.
On appeal, Highland Park argues that the Commissioner's
decision to approve Hatikvah's request to add grades six through
eight was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Highland Park
asserts it must be assumed students from Highland Park and twenty-
two other school districts will continue to be enrolled in
8 A-3890-14T1
Hatikvah. Highland Park contends the NJDOE has erroneously
interpreted the CSPA as requiring these sending districts to pay
for its students to attend Hatikvah. Highland Park further argues
the Commissioner failed to give meaningful consideration to the
objectors' challenges to Hatikvah's application.
East Brunswick argues the Commissioner's decision is
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because it allegedly
allows Hatikvah to continue to operate in violation of the CSPA.
East Brunswick contends Hatikvah's "district of residence" is East
Brunswick and under the NJDOE's regulations, Hatikvah may only
enroll students from East Brunswick and school districts that are
contiguous to East Brunswick Township.
East Brunswick asserts that Hatikvah is operating a state-
wide charter school, drawing students from multiple districts and
counties, which East Brunswick claims is a violation of its
charter. It further argues that the Commissioner erred by failing
to accord weight to the "negative impact" Hatikvah's expansion
will have on other districts.
Manalapan-Englishtown argues that the Commissioner's decision
arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably allows Hatikvah to
continue to operate a state-wide charter school in violation of
its charter and the NJDOE's regulations. Manalapan-Englishtown
also asserts that the Commissioner erred by failing to accord
9 A-3890-14T1
weight to the negative impact Hatikvah's expansion allegedly will
have on East Brunswick. Differing with Highland Park, Manalapan-
Englishtown argues that the requirement that non-resident
districts defray the cost for their students to attend a charter
school comports with the CSPA.
Also differing with Highland Park, the NJCSA argues the CSPA
requires each school district to pay for its students to attend a
charter school. Therefore, the NJCSA argues that Highland Park
must pay the cost for Highland Park students to attend Hatikvah.
III.
Initially, we note that the scope of our review of a final
decision of the Commissioner on a charter school application is
limited. In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair
Founders Group,
216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). We may only reverse the
Commissioner's decision if arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Ibid. (citing In re Petitions for Rulemaking, N.J.A.C. 10:82-1.2
& 10:85-4.1,
117 N.J. 311, 325 (1989)). We must accord a "strong
presumption of reasonableness" to the Commissioner's exercise of
his statutorily-delegated responsibilities. City of Newark v. Nat.
Res. Council in Dep't of Envtl. Prot.,
82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980).
In determining whether an agency's action is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, our review is generally limited to
considering:
10 A-3890-14T1
1) [W]hether the agency's action violates
express or implied legislative policies,
that is, did the agency follow the law;
2) whether the record contains substantial
evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and
3) 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 Quest Academy,
216 N.J. at 385-86
(quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs.,
143 N.J. 22,
25 (1995)).]
A reviewing court "may not substitute its own judgment for
that of the agency, even though the court might have reached a
different result." In re Carter,
191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007) (citing
Greenwood v. St. Police Training Ctr.,
127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)).
Our deference to the agency's decision is especially appropriate
when the issue under review pertains to the agency's special
"expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field." In re
Herrmann,
192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007).
IV.
East Brunswick and Manalapan-Englishtown argue that the
Commissioner's decision improperly allows Hatikvah to operate in
violation of its charter. According to these districts, Hatikvah
has been chartered as a school with a "district of residence" in
East Brunswick. The districts argue that Hatikvah's charter only
11 A-3890-14T1
permits it to enroll students from East Brunswick and school
districts that are contiguous to East Brunswick Township. East
Brunswick and Manalapan-Englishtown maintain the Commissioner's
decision improperly permits Hatikvah to continue operating as a
state-wide charter school.
The establishment and operation of a charter school in this
State is governed by the CSPA and the regulations adopted pursuant
to the Act.
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18; N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.1 to -6.4;
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-15.1 to -15.4. Among other things, the CSPA
provides that a charter school must operate in accordance with its
charter and the relevant statutes and regulations.
N.J.S.A.
18A:36A-11(a).
In its initial application for a charter, Hatikvah identified
East Brunswick Township as its "district of residence." The term
"district of residence" is defined in the regulations as "the
school district in which a charter school facility is physically
located." N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2. The term "[r]egion of residence" is
defined as "contiguous school districts in which a charter school
operates and is the charter school's district of residence." Ibid.
East Brunswick and Manalapan-Englishtown argue that Hatikvah
was chartered as a school with a specified "district of residence,"
not as a school with a "region of residence." The districts
12 A-3890-14T1
therefore maintain the Commissioner is improperly allowing
Hatikvah to operate a state-wide charter school.
We note that in November 2014, when Hatikvah sought to amend
its charter to expand its enrollment and grades, neither East
Brunswick nor Manalapan-Englishtown submitted comments to the
Commissioner asserting that Hatikvah was operating in violation
of its charter. Therefore, the Commissioner did not address this
issue in his March 19, 2015 decision, which is the decision before
us on appeal.
Generally, an appellate court will not consider questions or
issues that were not presented properly in the court or agency
below. See Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co.,
62 N.J. 229, 234
(1973). Because the contention that Hatikvah was operating in
violation of its charter was not raised before the Commissioner,
we will not consider the districts' arguments on this issue.
We note, however, that under
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-17, the
Commissioner "may revoke a school's charter if the school has not
fulfilled any condition imposed by the commissioner in connection
with the granting of the charter or if the school has violated any
provision of its charter." Therefore, the districts' contention
that Hatikvah is operating in violation of its charter implicates
the Commissioner's discretionary enforcement authority under
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-17.
13 A-3890-14T1
If East Brunswick and Manalapan-Englishtown wish to pursue
this issue, the districts may submit a complaint to the Hatikvah
board of trustees asserting that the school is not being operated
in accordance with its charter and, if the complaint is not
"adequately addressed," the districts may present the complaint
to the Commissioner pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-15. We express
no opinion on the merits of such a complaint, if filed.
V.
Next, Highland Park argues that it is not required to bear
the cost for Highland Park students to attend Hatikvah. Highland
Park contends that
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b) limits the financial
responsibility for the students' attendance at charter schools to
the "school district of residence," which Highland Park interprets
to mean the charter school's "district of residence." Highland
Park contends that in enacting the CSPA, the Legislature intended
to limit this financial responsibility to the charter school's
"district of residence" or, at most, the contiguous districts
identified in the school's approved "region of residence."
We note that in March 2014, when Hatikvah sought to renew its
charter, Highland Park did not assert that it does not have a
statutory obligation to pay for Highland Park students to attend
the school. Moreover, in November 2014, when Hatikvah filed its
14 A-3890-14T1
application to expand its enrollment and grades, Highland Park did
not raise this issue.
In addition, Highland Park never challenged the validity of
the administrative regulation which requires all sending school
districts to pay for their students to attend a charter school.
Hatikvah also points out that Highland Park has without objection
paid tuition for its students to attend the school for at least
six years.1
For these reasons, Hatikvah argues that the court should
preclude Highland Park from challenging its payment obligations
to the school. Although the issue is raised for the first time on
appeal, we have decided to exercise our discretion and address
Highland Park's argument, because it involves an issue of law.
When the court interprets statutory language interpreting a
statute, our "goal is to divine and effectuate the Legislature's
intent". State v. Shelley,
205 N.J. 320, 323 (2011) (quoting
DiProspero v. Penn,
183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)). In determining the
Legislature's intent, we begin our analysis with the language of
the statute, and give the terms used their ordinary and accepted
meanings. Ibid.
1
In support of these arguments, Hatikvah filed a motion to
supplement the record with evidence of Highland Park's payments
to the school from at least 2010-2011. We have denied the motion.
15 A-3890-14T1
If the statutory language leads to one clear and unambiguous
result, the interpretive process is at an end. State v. D.A.,
191 N.J. 158, 164 (2007) (citation omitted). However, if "there is
ambiguity in the statutory language that leads to more than one
plausible interpretation" we can consider extrinsic evidence in
our search for the interpretation that is consistent with the
Legislature's intent. Ibid. (citing DiProspero,
183 N.J. at 492).
The relevant provision of the Act states in pertinent part
that:
[t]he school district of residence shall pay
directly to the charter school for each
student enrolled in the charter school who
resides in the district an amount equal to
[ninety-percent] of the sum of the budget year
equalization aid per pupil and the prebudget
year general fund tax levy per pupil inflated
by the [Consumer Price Index] rate most recent
to the calculation. . . .
[N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b).]
Thus, the statute expressly provides that the "school
district of residence" must pay the charter school for "each
student" enrolled in the school "who resides in the district."
Ibid. Thus, as used in
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b), the term "school
district of residence" refers to the district where the student
resides, not the district where the charter school is located.
We note that the Act expressly envisions that students may
enroll in a charter school, even though they reside in a district
16 A-3890-14T1
other than the district where the charter school is located. See
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-8(a) (requiring charter schools to give
preference for enrollment to students who reside "in the school
district in which the charter school is located"). There is nothing
in the Act that would allow these students to attend a charter
school without a financial contribution from the school districts
in which they reside. Thus, under
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(a),
obligation of a school district to attend a charter school is not
limited to the charter school's "district of residence."
The regulations adopted pursuant to the Act are consistent
with this interpretation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b). Indeed, the
regulations expressly provide that both a charter school's
"district of residence" and the "non-resident school districts"
must pay for their students to attend a charter school. N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-15.3(g)(2), (3).
The extrinsic evidence also supports this interpretation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b). The CSPA has its genesis in two bills:
Assembly No. 592 and Senate No. 1796. In September 1995, the Office
of Legislative Services (OLS) provided the Legislature with its
fiscal estimate for Senate No. 1796, which includes the following
statement:
In regard to the funding of charter schools,
the bill provides that the school district of
residence would pay directly to the charter
17 A-3890-14T1
school for each student enrolled who resides
in the district an amount equal to the local
levy budget per pupil in the district for the
specific grade level. . . . The cost for out
of district pupils would be paid by the
district of residence of the pupil. . . .
[Legislative Fiscal Estimate, S.1796, at 1
(N.J. 1995) (emphasis added).]
Thus, the OLS's fiscal estimate makes clear that all school
districts of residence must pay for students to attend a charter
school, and the financial obligation is not limited to the charter
school's "district of residence."
In support of its interpretation of the CSPA, Highland Park
refers to certain provisions of the Act that pertain to a charter
school's "district of residence." Highland Park cites
N.J.S.A.
18A:36A-4(c), which requires a proposed charter school to provide
a copy of its application to the "local board of education."
However, the statute does not support Highland Park's argument.
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4(c) also requires the Commissioner to provide
notice to "members of the State Legislature, school
superintendents, and mayors and governing bodies of all
legislative districts, school districts, or municipalities in
which there are students who will be eligible for enrollment in
the charter school."
Highland Park also cites
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(b), a statute
that limits a charter school's salaries to the salaries of the
18 A-3890-14T1
highest step in the district where the school is located; and
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-16(b), which requires a charter school to serve
a copy of its annual report on the local board of education in the
district where the school is located. However, these statutes have
no direct bearing on whether a student's "school district of
residence" must pay for students from that district to attend at
a charter school.
We conclude that under
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b), the term
"school district of residence" means the school district where the
student resides, and each "school district of residence" must pay
the charter school for its student to attend the school, in the
amounts required by the Act and the regulations. We therefore
reject Highland Park's contention that only the charter school's
"district of residence" is obligated to pay for its students to
attend the school.
VI.
Highland Park and East Brunswick further argue that the
Commissioner's final decision is arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable because it fails to provide sufficient reasons for
granting Hatikvah's application to add grades six through eight.
Highland Park argues that the Commissioner cites the "commendable
performance" of Hatikvah's students over a three-year period, and
the school's continued implementation of "an innovative model of
19 A-3890-14T1
instruction," but fails to provide sufficient explanation or
analysis for this conclusion.
Highland Park further argues that despite its claim to the
contrary, Hatikvah is experiencing "steadily withering enrollment"
by East Brunswick students and increased reliance upon marketing
the school to families outside Hatikvah's "district or residence."
Highland Park also cites what it claims is an "intolerable strain"
upon its budget from the "outflow of funds" to support its
students' attendance at Hatikvah. Highland Park contends the
Commissioner failed to address these issues in his decision.
In addition, Highland Park asserts that it is "manifestly
clear" Hatikvah has abandoned its original mission of serving the
needs of the East Brunswick community, and the Commissioner
arbitrarily relied upon the NJ ASK test results of Hatikvah's
students. Highland Park claims that NJ ASK testing is not a
"meaningful indicator" of a student's progress. Highland Park
further claims that Hatikvah's students scored lower than East
Brunswick's students on the NJ ASK tests.
East Brunswick argues that the Commissioner erred by failing
to give sufficient weight to the negative impact the Hatikvah
expansion will allegedly have upon the East Brunswick school
district. East Brunswick asserts that Hatikvah's proposed
expansion will jeopardize its ability to maintain existing
20 A-3890-14T1
educational programs and contractual obligations; require East
Brunswick taxpayers to fund an additional up-front amount of more
than $1 million; have a negative impact on its annual budgets for
2016 to 2019; and cause the district to apply a significant amount
of the district's two-percent cap on annual budget increases to
the charter school. East Brunswick also cites Hatikvah's alleged
failure to meet its community target enrollment; East Brunswick's
alleged inability to afford to maintain small class sizes like
Hatikvah; and certain financial hardships the district allegedly
has "endured" since Hatikvah's charter was approved.
We are convinced that these arguments lack sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We note, however, that we are convinced that there is sufficient
credible evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's
final decision.
Here, the Commissioner considered Hatikvah's application in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6, and the record supports the
Commissioner's finding that Hatikvah's academic performance had
improved from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014. The record also supports the
Commissioner's finding that the school continues to implement an
innovative model of instruction, as detailed in its charter
application. Moreover, Hatikvah's application indicates that its
organization is sound and the school remains fiscally viable.
21 A-3890-14T1
As noted, in opposing Hatikvah's application, Highland Park
and East Brunswick cited certain financial and educational harms
that allegedly would result if Hatikvah were permitted to expand
its enrollment and add grades six through eight. The Commissioner
denied Hatikvah's request to increase enrollment in kindergarten
through grade five. In any event, the districts' "generalized"
protests did not provide a basis to deny Hatikvah's application
to add grades six through eight. See In re Red Bank Charter Sch.,
367 N.J. Super. 462, 482 (App. Div. 2004) (quoting Charter Sch.
Application of Englewood on the Palisades,
164 N.J. 316, 334
(2000)).
Affirmed.
22 A-3890-14T1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
