NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4020-21
Y.Y., on behalf of minor
children, W.Y. and D.Y.,1
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE BOROUGH OF NORTH
ARLINGTON, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent-Respondent.
_______________________________
Argued December 19, 2023 – Decided January 25, 2024
Before Judges Mayer, Enright and Paganelli.
On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of
Education, Docket No. 149-5/16.
Y.Y., appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Eric Labes Harrison argued the cause for respondent
Board of Education of the Borough of North Arlington
(Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Eric Labes Harrison,
on the brief).
1
We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the parties' privacy.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent New Jersey Commissioner of Education
(Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorney General, on the
statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Y.Y. appeals from a July 13, 2022 final decision issued by
respondent New Jersey Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) directing
Y.Y. to reimburse respondent Borough of North Arlington Board of Education
(Board) for tuition costs in the amount of $30,720.36. We affirm.
This case returns to us after a limited remand, directing the Commissioner
to address the issue of tuition reimbursement and the arguments raised by Y.Y.
"about the September 2015 disenrollment of D.Y." See Y.Y., on behalf of W.Y.
and D.Y. v. Bd. of Ed. of Borough of North Arlington, No. A-5475-18 (App.
Div. Oct. 13, 2021) (slip op. at 22).
In our prior decision, "[w]e affirm[ed] the Commissioner's final agency
decision on the issue of domicile, finding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." Id. at 2. However, we "reverse[d] and remand[ed] the tuition
issue to the Commissioner." Ibid.. In remanding, we stated:
[W]e are not able to determine whether the tuition
assessment is sustainable on appeal. Neither party
provided a transcript of the [Administrative Law
Judge's] hearing on February 14, 2019, nor copies of
A-4020-21
2
the certifications that apparently detail how the tuition
was calculated. All that we have is the Commissioner's
summary of the attendance dates and amounts due
without an explanation of the hourly rates.
. . . [T]he Commissioner did not address [Y.Y.]'s
argument about the period from September [22,] 2015
to November [2,] 2015. Although this would not affect
the domicile issue, it is not clear if this would affect the
tuition calculation either in amount or duration, or even
if this disenrollment occurred as alleged. For this
reason, we reverse and remand the tuition issue to the
Commissioner for factual findings regarding the tuition
and consideration of [Y.Y.]'s arguments about the
September 2015 disenrollment of D.Y.
[Id. at 22.]
The background facts relevant to Y.Y.'s appeal are set forth in our October
13, 2021 opinion. We need not repeat them here.
Y.Y. did not seek a review of our October 13, 2021 decision before the
New Jersey Supreme Court. Thus, we do not consider Y.Y.'s arguments in this
appeal related to the issue of domicile because the matter was adjudicated and
our prior decision was dispositive of that issue.
On July 13, 2022, the Commissioner issued a final decision compelling
Y.Y. to pay the sum of $30,720.36 to the Board, representing tuition
reimbursement. The Commissioner explained the calculation for arriving at the
amount of tuition reimbursement due from Y.Y. to the Board. Additionally, the
A-4020-21
3
Commissioner found "[Y.Y.]'s arguments regarding the period of
homeschooling [between September 22 and November 2, 2015] [were] . . .
irrelevant, as no tuition was awarded to the Board for that time period."
Y.Y. appealed. On appeal, Y.Y. argues our October 13, 2021 decision,
affirming the Commissioner's domicile findings, was incorrect. She further
contends the Commissioner erred in ordering her to reimburse the Board for
tuition. We reject these arguments.
The sole issue on remand to the Commissioner was the calculation of
tuition reimbursement. Nowhere in her appellate brief does Y.Y. address this
issue. Because Y.Y.'s brief failed to address the Commissioner's calculation of
tuition reimbursement, the issue is waived. See N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v.
Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 505-06 n. 2 (App. Div. 2015) ("An issue
that is not briefed is deemed waived upon appeal.").
Although we could decline to review Y.Y.'s challenge to the
Commissioner's July 13, 2022 decision calculating tuition reimbursement, we
elect to explain why the calculation is supported by substantial evidence in the
record and, therefore, proper.
"An agency's determination on the merits 'will be sustained unless there
is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks
A-4020-21
4
fair support in the record.'" Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.
Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). On appeal from an agency decision, we
consider:
(1) whether 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.
[Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle
Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (quoting In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)).]
A school district may seek tuition reimbursement where a student attended
but was not domiciled in the district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2). The
Commissioner's computation of tuition "shall be . . . on the basis of 1/180 of the
total annual per pupil cost to the local district multiplied by the number of days
of ineligible attendance." Ibid. However, tuition may only be assessed for the
period during which the Commissioner's decision was pending "and for up to
one year of a student's ineligible attendance in [the] school district prior to the
appeal's filing and including the [twenty-one]-day period to file an appeal."
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a).
A-4020-21
5
At a February 14, 2019 hearing, an Administrative Law Judge reviewed
certifications submitted by Kathleen Marano, the North Arlington School
District Business Administrator and North Arlington Board of Education
Secretary; and John Susino, the Bergen County Technical and Special Services
School Districts Business Administrator and Secretary.
Marano certified the annual cost of D.Y.'s tuition was $10,844 for the
2014-15 school year and $12,290 for the 2015-16 school year. She further
certified that, beginning May 4, 2015, D.Y. attended school in the district for an
additional thirty and one-half school days during the 2014-15 school year and
ten school days during the 2015-16 school year. Based on the foregoing, Marano
calculated the total tuition reimbursement owed for D.Y. to be $2,520.23. 2
Marano also certified the annual cost of W.Y.'s tuition at Bergen Tech was
$8,568 for the 2014-15 school year, during which W.Y. was enrolled for thirty-
three days between May 4, 2015 and the last day of school. Therefore, she
2
In arriving at this calculation, Marano divided the annual tuition rate for each
year of attendance by 180, producing a daily tuition rate of $60.24 for the 2014 -
15 school year and $68.28 for the 2015-16 school year. Marano then multiplied
the daily rate by the number of days D.Y. attended school during that school
year, finding the total cost of D.Y.'s tuition to be $1,837.46 for the thirty and
one-half days D.Y. attended school during the 2014-15 school year and $682.78
for the ten days D.Y. attended school during 2015-16.
A-4020-21
6
calculated the total tuition reimbursement owed for W.Y. for that school year to
be $1,570.80.3
Marano and Susino further certified the North Arlington school district
paid Bergen Tech the following amounts for W.Y.'s tuition in subsequent years:
$8,730 for the full 2015-16 school year; $8,910 for the full 2016-17 school year;
and $9,126 for the full 2017-18 school year. Therefore, Marano calculated the
total tuition reimbursement owed for W.Y. to be $28,336.80.
Based on these calculations, Marano determined Y.Y. owed the North
Arlington school district $30,857.03. However, the Board granted a two-day
credit for D.Y.'s attendance during the 2015-16 school year, reducing the amount
of tuition owed by $68.28 per day for a total tuition reimbursement in the amount
of $30,720.36.
Having reviewed the record, the Commissioner's calculation of the
amount of tuition reimbursement due from Y.Y. comported with N.J.A.C.
6A:22-6.2(a) and the decision is amply supported by the evidence. Additionally,
on this record, it is clear the Commissioner did not assess tuition for D.Y. for
the period between September 22 and November 2, 2015, clarifying that issue
3
In arriving at this calculation, Marano divided the annual tuition rate by 180,
producing a daily tuition rate of approximately $47.60, which she multiplied by
the number of days W.Y. was enrolled at Bergen Tech that year.
A-4020-21
7
consistent with our remand instructions. Thus, we are satisfied the
Commissioner did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably i n
calculating the amount of tuition owed by Y.Y. to the Board.
Affirmed.
A-4020-21
8
Y.Y., Etc. v. Board of Education of the Borough of North Arlington, Etc.
Combined Opinion