|Matter of Norris v Walcott|
|2012 NY Slip Op 22151|
|Decided on May 29, 2012|
|Supreme Court, New York County|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
|This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.|
In the Matter of Melinda Norris, et al., Petitioners, Pursuant to Article 78,
Dennis Walcott, in his Official Capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Board of Education; The Board of Trustees of the State University of New York; and Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School, Respondents.
Peter H. Moulton, J.
Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]; Eighth Ave. Garage Corp. v H.K.L Realty Corp., 60 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2009].)
(Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Dep't of Information Technology and Telecom. of the City of New York, 5 NY3d 30, 34 .)
(Education Law § 2852[5-b].)
Date:May 29, 2012______________________
Footnote 1:The Memorandum accompanying the September 13, 2011 minutes is dated October 4, 2012. This cover memorandum and the minutes are part of the record of the companion case Southside Community Schools Coalition v Brooklyn Success Academy 4 Charter School, Index 102054/12. The memo and the minutes appear on the Regents' website at: www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/October2011/1101bra2.pdf
Footnote 2:Education Law § 2857(1) does impose some notification duties on the Board of Regents and the charter entity (SUNY Trustees). That section states in relevant part: "At each significant stage of the chartering process, the charter entity [here, the SUNY Trustees] and the board of regents shall provide appropriate notification to the school district in which the charter school is located and to the public and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area as the proposed charter school." Respondents are not among the groups entitled to notification under this section.