A4J BrooklynSuccess3Petition Final 120208

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of MELINDA NORRIS, individually and

as a parent of ANGELI QUE LOPERENA, GABRIELLE LOPERENA, AL YSSA LOPERENA, and AMETHYST LOPERENA, infants; MARCUS CARRASQUELLO, individually and as a parent of MARC CARRASQUILLO, infant; ATIY AH OYO-GA YLE, individually and as a parent ofTABRI OYO, infant; PAMELA BYNOE, individually and as a parent of TREMAINE SAMUELS, infant; TANESHA RODNEY, individually and as a parent of ASUANE RODNEY, infant; PAULA MORRIS, individually and as a parent of JOHN-DAVID MORRIS, infant; ALLISON BOSTON, individually and as a parent ofBIKO BOSTON, infant; JOYLE REVERE, individually and as a parent of WYNTON PELLE, infant; COLEEN MINGO, individually and as a parent of CHRISTOPHER GOOLSBY, infant; LENNY GARCIA, individually and as a parent of ELIAS GARCIA, infant; JACQUELINE GOLDMAN-JOHNSON, individually and as a parent of SYDNEY JOHNSON, infant; OSWALDO BAJANA, individually and as a parent of SADDISH BAJANA, infant; GLORIA MATTERA, individually and as a parent of PITA SWEENY, infant; ISMENE SPELIOTIS, individually and as a parent of ADRIADNE SPELIOTIS, infant; and AILEEN WILSON, individually and as a parent of EWAN DIETSCHE and ISLA DIETSCHE, infants, Petitioners, Pursuant to CPLR Article 78, - againstDENNIS 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 BROOKL YN SUCCESS ACADEMY 3 CHARTER SCHOOL, Respondents, for Relief from the Wrongful Siting of the Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School in New York City Community School District 15 Without a Lawful Revision of Its Charter in Violation of Education Law § 2852(7).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

Index No.

VERIFIED PETITION

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

Petitioners, as and for their Verified Petition, by their undersigned attorneys, allege, upon information and belief, as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an Article 78 proceeding that seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

addressed to the improper siting of a charter school in a school district not provided for in its charter. 2. The petitioners are parents of children who attend the schools in Community

School District 15, principally schools located in the building known as K 293. 3. Petitioners respectfully seek ajudgment from the Court that: (1) declares that

pursuant to Educ. Law § 2852(7), respondent Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School ("Brooklyn Success Academy 3") must amend and/or revise the charter of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in order to lawfully site the school in New York City Community School District ("School District") 15; (2) declares that respondents the State University of New York Board of Trustees ("SUNY Trustees"), the New York City Board of Education (the "BOE"), and Brooklyn Success Academy 3 violated N.Y. Educ. Law § 2852(7) by participating in, approving and/or authorizing the siting of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in School District 15 without a lawful revision amending its charter; (3) declares that the Charter Agreement prohibits Brooklyn Success Academy 3 from being sited outside of School Districts 13 or 14, and that any agreement between Brooklyn Success Academy 3 and the BOE for facility space in School District 15 is illegal and therefore, unenforceable; (4) permanently enjoins respondent Brooklyn Success Academy 3 from opening, operating and maintaining the Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in School District 15; and (5) permanently enjoins the BOE from providing public school space to Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in Community School District 15.

2

JURISDICTION 4. and 7804. PARTIES 5. a. Petitioner Melinda Norris is the parent of Angelique Loperena, Gabrielle This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 301, 3001

Loperena, Alyssa Loperena, and Amethyst Loperena, who attend the School for International Studies, which is located in a building known as K 293, located at 284 Baltic Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, which is within in School District 15. b. Petitioner Marcus Carrasquello is the parent of Marc Carrasquillo, who

attends the Brooklyn School for Global Studies, also located in K 293. c. Petitioner Atiyah Oyo-Gayle is the parent of Tabri Oyo, who attends the

Brooklyn School for Global Studies. d. Petitioner Pamela Bynoe is the parent of Tremaine Samuels, who attends

the Brooklyn School for Global Studies. e. Petitioner Tanesha Rodney is the parent of Asuane Rodney, who attends

the School for International Studies. f. Petitioner Paula Morris is the parent of John-David Morris, who attends

the School for International Studies. g. Petitioner Allison Boston is the parent of Biko Boston, who attends the

School for International Studies. h. Petitioner Joyle Revere is the parent of Wynton Pelle, who attends the

School for International Studies.

3

1.

Petitioner Coleen Mingo is the parent of Christopher Goolsby, who

attends the School for International Studies. J. Petitioner Lenny Garcia is the parent of Elias Garcia, who attends the

PS 24, a public school located in School District 15. k. Petitioner Jacqueline Goldman-Johnson is the parent of Sydney Johnson,

who attends PS 32, a public school located in School District 15.

1.

Petitioner Oswaldo Bajana is the parent of Saddish Bajana, who attends

the Brooklyn School for Global Studies. m. Petitioner Gloria Mattera is the parent of Pita Sweeny, who attends

MS 447, a public school located in School District 15. n. attends MS 447. o. Petitioner Aileen Wilson is a parent of Ewan Dietsche, who attends Petitioner Ismene Speliotis is the parent of Adriadne Speliotis, who

MS 447, and Isla Dietsche, who attends PS 58, a public school located in School District 15. 6. The State University of New York ("SUNY") is a public benefit corporation

which administers the University of the State of New York pursuant to Section 352 of the Education Law. Respondent SUNY Trustees, which govern SUNY, are also designated in the Charter Schools Act of 1998 (codified as Sections 2850-2857 of the Education Law) as a statewide chartering entity or "authorizer," which has the authority to grant charters which allows the operation of independent and autonomous public charter schools. The SUNY Trustees are located at 353 Broadway, Albany, New York. 7. Respondent BOE, which is also known as the New York City Department of

Education, is a school board organized and existing pursuant to the Education Law of the State

4

of New York, governing public schools in the City of New York. It is located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007. 8. Respondent Dennis Walcott is the Chancellor of the BOE, and, as such, under the

New York Education Law, functions as the chief executive of the BOE. Walcott is being sued in his official capacity. 9. Respondent Brooklyn Success Academy 3 is a not-for-profit educational

corporation, incorporated in the State of New York. Its principal office is located at 2575 Lexington Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10037. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Respondents Violated N.Y. Education Law § 2852(7) A. Education Law § 2852(7) Requires that Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Revise Its Charter in Order to Be Sited in School District 15. 10. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 11. Educ. Law § 2852(7)(a) and (b) mandate, that where as here, a charter school

seeks to be relocated to a School District other than that for which it was chartered, the school must apply for a revision to its charter. 12. Specifically, the statute provides that: (a) A revision of a charter shall be made only upon the approval of the charter entity and the board of regents in accordance with the provisions of subdivisions five-a and five-b of this section. (b) When a revision of a charter involves the relocation of a charter school to a different school district, the proposed new school district shall be given at least forty-five days notice of the proposed relocation. In addition, the applicant shall provide an analysis of the community support for such relocation and of the projected programmatic and fiscal impact of the charter school on the

5

proposed new school district of location and other public and nonpublic schools in the area. Educ. Law § 2852(7) 13. Brooklyn Success Academy 3 was chartered for siting in School Districts 13 or 14

with a preference in enrollment to students who reside in those School Districts. 14. Specifically, on February 28, 2011, Brooklyn Success Academy 3, through lead

applicant Eva Moskowitz, submitted a proposal to the Charter Schools Institute for the State University of New York (the "Institute") to apply for a charter to open, operate and maintain the Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in School Districts 13 or 14 (the "Application"). A copy of the

excerpted Application of Brooklyn Success Academy 2, which, upon information and belief, is substantially similar to that of Brooklyn Success 3, is annexed hereto as Exhibit ("Exh.") R! 15. The Application was submitted in response to the Institute's "January 2011

Request for Proposals to Establish NYS Charter Schools for Submission to the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York Pursuant to Education Law § 2852(9)," which was issued by the Institute on January 3, 2011 ("January 2011 RFP")." A copy of the January 2011 RFP is annexed hereto as Exh. A. 16. In its Application, Brooklyn Success Academy 3 specifically represented that the

proposed charter school would be located in School Districts 13 or 14 and that the school would

Upon information and belief, on February 28, 2011, Moskowitz submitted to the Institute ajoint application or identical applications that sought charters for Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 2, Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 3 and Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4. In violation of the Institute's published rules prohibiting it from considering simultaneous applications, the Institute accepted and considered all three applications for approval. ("Simultaneous submissions will not be considered for review by the Institute. Simultaneous submission refers to a substantially similar proposal with a substantially similar applicant team (applicant, proposed board members and/or administrative staft) being under review by the Board of Regents.")

!

6

express a preference to enroll students who resided in School Districts 13 or 14. See generally, the Application at Exh. A. 17. On June 5, 2011, the SUNY Charter Institute recommended that the Trustees

establish three Brooklyn Success Charter Schools in Brooklyn's Community School Districts 13 and 14 (see Exh. C). That Recommendation stated, at page 7, that: "Each proposal provided evidence of public outreach that conforms to the process prescribed by the SUl\lY Trustees for the purpose of soliciting and incorporating community input regarding the proposed charter school." The Recommendation expressly described the schools as being located in facilities in Community School Districts 13 and 14. 18. On June 14,2011, the SUNY Trustees, in their capacity as charter school

authorizers under Article 56 of the Education Law, approved the establishment of Brooklyn Success Academy 3. The Minutes of the Trustees meeting is annexed as Exhibit D. Again, there was specific reference to Districts 13 and 14. 19. Subsequently, on August 11,2011, the SUNY Trustees and Brooklyn Success A copy of the Charter

Academy 3 entered into a Charter Agreement ("Charter Agreement").

Agreement, to the extent it is publicly available, dated August 11,2011 is annexed hereto as Exh.E. 20. Operation." Operation. " 21. On September 12,2011, the New York State Board of Regents approved the The Charter Agreement incorporates the Application into it as its "Terms of See Exh. A to the Charter Agreement (Exh. E), which is entitled "Terms of

Charter for Brooklyn Success 3 as proposed by the SUNY Trustees.

7

22.

On October 28,2011, through a public notice issued by the BOE, respondent

BOE first notified the public that Brooklyn Success Academy 3 would be sited in School District 15. See Educational Impact Statement, annexed as Exh. F. Public input was solicited at a public meeting held on November 29,2011. 23.
2

On December 14,2011, the BOE Panel on Educational Policy, the BOE's

governing body, voted to approve the proposal to co-locate Brooklyn Success Academy 3 with three existing schools in the K293 public school building in School District 15. 24. Educ. Law § 2852(7) requires that Brooklyn Success Academy 3 apply for a

revision of its charter, which currently authorizes it to open and operate in School Districts 13 or 14, ifit seeks to open and operate in School District 15. 25. To date, respondent BOE, without approval of a charter revision by the SUNY

Trustees or the Board of Regents, has arranged for the location of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in a DOE-operated building, namely K 293. 26. On January 25,2012, after reviewing a report outlining the overwhelming

opposition to the proposal (see Exhibit H), SUNY Trustees' Education, College Readiness and Success Committee approved the siting of Brooklyn Success 3 in District 15 without a revision of its charter. 27. On February 2, 2012, petitioners appealed to H. Carl McCall, Chairman of the

SUNY Trustees, to have the Trustees reverse the Committee's action. See Exhibit I.

2

BOE repeatedly, and unlawfully, amended the EIS, even after the deadline for public input (see Exh. G).

8

28.

Upon information and belief, despite this appeal, the Trustees have either

forwarded their decision to the State Board of Regents or determined that no approval is needed from the Board of Regents. B. Respondents Willfully and Unlawfully Circumvented the Requirements of Education Law § 2852(7) in Order to Locate Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in School District 15. 29. Pursuant to Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(b)(i) and (ii), in order to meet the minimum

eligibility requirements for approval of a charter, an applicant for a school charter must demonstrate, inter alia, that they "they conducted public outreach that conforms with a thorough and meaningful public review process as prescribed by the SUNY Trustees to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students. 30. This requirement, at the heart of the Charter School Law, is the principal

mechanism for the community in which a school is to be located, to impact the program and format of a new charter school. This is particularly important in communities where a charter school is going to be housed in a public school building side by side with non-charter public schools. 31. As per the mandate set forth in Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(b) (ii), respondents SUNY

Trustees, through the Institute, prescribed vigorous and stringent standards for a charter school applicant to meet the minimum threshold for consideration with respect to the requirement that an applicant conduct public outreach and solicitation of community input as to the proposed charter school. 32. Specifically, in its January 2011 RFP, the Institute stated, in relevant part, that: In order to recommend a school for approval, the proposal [the charter school application] must demonstrate: (l) the community

9

was informed of the proposed school in a timely fashion; (2) the community had meaningful opportunities for input; and (3) there was a thoughtful process for considering community feedback and incorporating it into the final proposal. Please note that seeking input about the proposal is distinct from seeking support for the proposed school. While the applicant must also show evidence of community interest in and support for the school, this support alone is not adequate in demonstrating that the community was given the opportunity to provide input into the design of the proposed school and that input was carefully considered by the applicant. See January 2011 RFP (Exh. A) at notes to Request No.7. 33. Furthermore, pursuant to N.Y. Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(c), the SUNY Trustees are

authorized to grant priority or preference to charter school applicants that best demonstrate how they will achieve the objectives set forth in N.Y. Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(c)(i)-(vii). 34. In its Application, Brooklyn Success Academy 3 relied on representations that

they intended to locate the proposed charter school in School Districts 13 or 14 and expressed a preference to enroll students who resided in School Districts 13 or 14, a historically underserved community, in order to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for consideration of the Application by Respondents SUNY Trustees as mandated by the Education Law, and to earn preference points towards the approval of the Application. B); see also, the January 2011 RFP (Exh. A). 35. Specifically, in order to meet the minimum requirements for the Institute to See generally, the Application (Exh.

consider the application as set forth in Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(b )(ii), the Application states that it conducted community outreach and solicited input from the specific communities served by School Districts 13 and 14; not School District 15. See Application at pgs. 7(a)-1 -7(a)-3 (Exh. B). 36. In that regard the Application states, in relevant part, that:

10

Success Charter Network officials also attend community meetings to provide information to community members and solicit their feedback. These community meetings were with Community Board 1, 2 and 3 of Brooklyn and the Community Education Councils for [School] Districts 13 and 14 of Brooklyn. The applicant has also reached out to elected officials who represent [School] Districts 13 and 14. In addition, the applicant has reached out to the Community School District Superintendents as well as the presidents of the Community Education Councils and Community Boards of [School] Districts 13 and 14. Success Charter Network has already sent dated correspondence to elected officials, community organizations, community school district superintendents, Community Education Councils, and community boards informing them of our proposal to open three new public charter schools in [School] Districts 13 and 14. Success Charter Network will also run advertisements in the local newspapers in [School] Districts 13 and 14 both in print and online. See Application at pgs. 7(a)-1 -7(a)-3 37. (Exh. B).

As early as May 26, 2011, prior to the SUNY Trustees' approval of the charter

based on siting in School Districts 13 or 14, BOE Chancellor Walcott put the SUNY Trustees on notice that there was insufficient space to house Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in School Districts 13 or 14. See May 26,2011 letter from Walcott at its attachment, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exh. J. 38. Subsequently, notwithstanding that the Application failed to meet the minimum

requirements for consideration for School District 15, and despite the fact that the Institute was on notice that the BOE could not accommodate Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in Districts 13 or 14; the Institute recommended that the SUNY Trustees' Education, College Readiness and Success Committee approve the Application. See the Institute's Summary of Findings and a copy

Recommendations dated June 5, 2011 (the "Institute's Findings and Recommendations"), of which is annexed as Exh. C. 39.

In the Institute's Findings and Recommendations, the Institute found, inter alia,

that based on the Application, Brooklyn Success Academy 3: 11

conducted public outreach for each school, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community [School Districts 13 and 14] concerning the educational and programmatic needs of the students in conformity with Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(b )(ii). See the Institute's Findings and Recommendations at p.11 at Exh. C. 40. On October 28,2011, when the BOE first notified the public that Brooklyn

Success Academy 3 would be sited in School District 15, the notice was given through BOE's published Notice and Educational Impact Statement ("EIS"). 41. The EIS described the BOE's proposal to co-locate Brooklyn Success Academy 3

in building K293 in School District 15, which housed three existing schools; the Brooklyn School for Global Studies, the School for International Studies and, a District School 75 - P.S. 368. See the BOE's Notice and EIS dated October 28, 2011, and the final Amended EIS, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhs. F and G, respectively. 42. In the EIS, the BOE represented to the public that ifthe co-location was approved

by the BOE's Panel for Educational Policy that Brooklyn Success Academy 3 would open in September 2012 in School District 15 and that it would add approximately 510-640 Kindergarten through fourth grade seats in School District 15 via a lottery that would admit students with a preference for District 15 residents. See EIS (Exh. F) at p. 4. 43. On November 18,2011, School District 15 Community Education Council

("School District 15 CEC") members wrote to Walcott objecting to Brooklyn Success Academy 3. See letter dated November 18,2011 from School District 15 CEC to Walcott, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exh. K. 44. On November 23,2011, in response, BOE Deputy Chancellor for Portfolio

Planning, Mark Sternberg, responded in relevant part that: 12

the concerns expressed in the letter [Nov. 18, 2011 letter] have to do with whether it is proper under the school's charter and under the New York State Charter Schools Act for Success Academy 3 to be sited in District 15. Here, SUNY is the Charter Entity for Success Academy 3, and the school has been issued a charter. We have been assured by SUNY that there is no legal impediment to Success Academy 3 being sited in District 15. See November 23,2011 letter from BOE, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exh. L.

45.

On November 29,2011, the BOE and SUNY conducted a Joint Public Hearing in

regards to the co-location of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 with the three existing schools in the K293 school building. 46. Notably, the Joint Public Hearing was convened by BOE pursuant Educ. Law

§ 2590-h and Chancellor's Regulation A-190, which govern the co-location of charter schools and not Educ. Law §2852(7)(b), which in its regulations at 8 NYCRR 3.16 (c)(1)(iv) specifically states that the Chancellor is not authorized to make determinations with respect to revising a charter to relocate a charter school to another School District. 47. On December 13,2011, the BOE published an analysis of the public comments

that it received at the Joint Public Hearing. See the BOE's "Public Comment Analysis" dated December 13,2011, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exh. M. 48. There were several objections from the public that related to the "process by

which SUNY authorizes charters and the process by which Success Academy-Cobble Hill [Brooklyn Success Academy 3] was ultimately proposed to be sited in [School] District IS" after its charter was based on siting in School Districts 13 and 14. See the Public Comment Analysis, at p. 20, to Exh. M.

13

49.

In response to the aforementioned category of objections from the public, the

BOE stated in relevant part that: "[Tjhe authorizer for Success Academy-Cobble Hill [Brooklyn Success Academy 3], SUNY Charter Schools Institute, has made clear that the siting BOEs not violate the terms of the charter school's authorized application." Analysis, at p. 20, to Exh. M. 50. Based on the stringent and vigorous requirements prescribed for the charter See the Public Comment

approval in Educ. Law § 2852(9-a)(b)(i) and (ii) and the clear requirement that the placement of a charter school in a School District other than for which it was chartered for requires a charter revision pursuant to Educ. Law § 2852(7), respondent SUNY Trustees' contention that Brooklyn Success Academy 3's charter did not require revision and respondents' BOE, Brooklyn Success Academy 3's reliance on such representation was unlawfully irrational and unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion. C. The School District 15 Community Has Been Entirely Deprived of the Protections of N.Y. Education Law § 2852(7) by Respondents' Unlawful Acts and/or Omissions. 51. Educ. Law §§ 2852(7)(a) and (b) mandate that a charter can only be revised with

the approval of the SUNY Trustees and the New York State Board of Regents. Further, an application for a charter revision is treated as a proposed charter that must be evaluated in accordance with the requirements for charter approval set forth in Educ. Law § 2852 (2). 52. Moreover, as per Educ. Law § 2852(7)(b), the applicant must provide an analysis

of the community support for such relocation (emphasis added). This requirement is fundamental to the statute and is not pro forma. 53. Here, because respondents have circumvented the requirements of Educ. Law

§ 2852(7), the School District 15 community has been wrongfully denied the protection afforded by the administrative review process of the New York State Board of Regents. 14

54.
~ ~ 01..1.

Moreover, the School District 15 community has been denied a meaningful
..I. ..I. '-'
..l..l .l. oJ

onnortunitv for innut as to the nronosed desisn of the school and to exnress sunnort or obiections to the school as was contemplated by the Educ. Law. § 2852(7)(b).3 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (The Charter Agreement Prohibits Brooklyn Success Academy 3 from Opening in School District 15, and, Therefore, Any Contract Entered into by Brooklyn Success Academy 3 to Do So Is Illegal, Void and Unenforceable.) 55. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 56. Operation." 57. The Charter Agreement incorporates the Application into it as its "Terms of See Charter Agreement (Exh. E) at,-r 1.1. Section 2.17(i) of the Charter Agreement requires, in relevant part, that prior to

May 15,2012 Brooklyn Success Academy 3 enter into a "Facility Agreement," which is a lease, purchase agreement or other such arrangement that will "provide the School with all rights and permissions as are necessary to operate as a school in the School Facility according to the plan set forth in the Terms of Operation." 58. The Application, or Terms of Operation as it's referred to in the Charter

Agreement, currently provides that Brooklyn Success Academy 3 will be located in School Districts 13 and 14 and that it will express a preference in enrollment for students who reside in those School Districts. See generally, Application.

3

The language set forth in Educ. Law § 28S2(7)(b) mirrors that ofEduc. Law § 28S2(9-a)(b)(ii).

Thus, a

reasonable reading of the statute mandates that the same standard applies to satisfy both sections of the statute.

15

59.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Charter Agreement's Terms of Operations, Brooklyn

Success Academy 3 is not authorized to enter into an agreement for school facility space that is not located in School Districts 13 or 14, or give preference to students living in District 15.
60.

Therefore, any lease or other such arrangement by and between Brooklyn Success

Academy 3 and the BOE for school space in the K293 public school building in School District 15 is illegal, void and unenforceable. INJURY 61. By acting as aforesaid, respondents have deprived petitioners of the protections of

Educ. Law § 2852(7). Petitioners and other concerned School District 15 residents, were deprived of the opportunity to contribute meaningful input in the charter school proposal process. Without such input and opportunity to participate in school planning and design, petitioners and other parents of children in the district will lose their voice in the school planning process. Such injury is irreparable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that this Court: 1. Enter a declaratory judgment that: a. declares that pursuant to N.Y. Educ. Law § 2852(7), respondent Brooklyn

Success Academy 3 Charter School must revise the charter of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School in order to lawfully site the school in New York City Community School District 15; b. declares that respondents the State University of New York Board of

Trustees, the New York City Board of Education, and Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School violated N.Y. Educ. Law § 2852(7), which said respondents participated in, approved

16

and/or authorized the siting of Brooklyn Success Academy 3 in Community School District 15 without a lawful revision to its charter; and c. declares that the Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter Agreement

prohibits Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School from being sited outside of Community School Districts 13 or 14, and that any agreement to provide for siting to the contrary is illegal, void and unenforceable; 2. Enter a permanent injunction and judgment that enjoins respondent Brooklyn

Success Academy 3 Charter School from opening, operating and maintaining the Brooklyn Success Academy 3 Charter School in School District 15; and 3. Enter an Order awarding petitioners costs and attorneys' fees.

Dated: February 8, 2012

ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE Attorneys for Petitioners

Sabrina M. Tann 225 Broadway, Suite 1902 New York, New York 10007 phone: (212) 285-1400 fax: (718) 228-5537 e-mail: aschwartz@advocatesforjustice.net stann@advocatesny.com

17

VERIFICATION

) ) ss : County of New York )
_;-.,

State of New York

'------.-,\,

Cl)l.CffJ
information, and belief.

Cl "<\!/v\ I L

: lj

MIIU(;/C)

L~/I .

!

.

, being

duly sworn, swears that she is a Petitioner

in this Matter, that she has read

tie Petition,

and that the same is true to her knowledge,

i

/

Sworn to before me this day of February, 2012.

-./

"

/

18

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful