NY State Supreme Court, Onondaga County denies student's petition to

Where a 17-year-old high school student was prohibited from participating in sports, he filed a petition seeking an injunction to allow him to participate in all high school interscholastic sports.

Reviewing the facts in Matthew I. Guy and Alycia A. Guy v. New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., Commissioner of the New York State Department of Education, and Bishop Ludden Jr./Sr. High School, New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County Judge John V. Centra denied and dismissed the petition. The petitioner did not produce evidence to show entitlement to relief and he failed to appeal the decision to the commissioner.

The Facts

The petitioner, Matthew Guy, was home-schooled during his freshman year.

Guy was 17 years old and was entering his senior year of high school at defendant Bishop Ludden, Jr./Sr. High School. After commencing training in August to play football at Bishop Ludden, the athletic director was notified by defendant New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc. (association) that Guy was not eligible to play in the 2005-2006 year.

Guy was prohibited from practice games since notification by the association to the athletic director and pending the court's decision.

The athletic director of Bishop Ludden determined the petitioner was not eligible to play football. He was already in his fifth season since he repeated the 10th grade in 2003-2004.

The regulation indicated he was not eligible for an extension of eligibility because his fifth year of high school was not the result of his participation in a student exchange program, foreign study program and it was not the result of illness, accident or similar circumstances beyond the control of the student.

The athletic director then contacted the executive director of the association, who advised him that Guy was not eligible and did not qualify for an extension of eligibility under the circumstances.

Guy argued that due to the home schooling, he was precluded from participating in interscholastic sports and lost a year of eligibility.

Guy sought an order permitting him to play interscholastic sports. He also sought a preliminary injunction against the defendants, thereby allowing him to participate in all high school interscholastic sports, and a permanent injunction, allowing the same should a full trial on the merits of this issue occur.

Guy's mother argued (1) the effect of the decision prohibiting her son from participating in high school athletics interfered with a parent's constitutional right to educate her children as she chooses; (2) there is no express provision prohibiting such participation in the event a child is home schooled; (3) there are allowances from extensions explicitly provided for in the rules and regulations of the commissioner reserved from circumstances beyond a student's control; and (4) she and her son were not notified of the adverse effect that home schooling would have on eligibility to participate in interscholastic high school sports.

Court's Analysis

The commissioner maintained that the petitioners failed to state a cause of action against him, to obtain jurisdiction over him and to name a necessary party.

The commissioner also argued that in order to show cause the petition required that personal service by certified mail be on the Attorney General's office and the defendants on or before Sept. 14. They argued CPLR 307(2) requires that for service to be complete, the document must be received by the state agency or officer sued in his official capacity (in addition to service upon the Attorney General's office as required by CPLR 307[1]). These papers were not received by the commissioner within the time provided by the order to show cause.

Judge Centra agreed with the commissioner that the petitioners failed to timely serve him, CPLR 307(2). The court dismissed the action against the commissioner.

According to the association, a request for a fifth year of eligibility must be made to the Section Three Extended Eligibility Committee; no such application was made.

Also, no appeal was brought before the association regarding this matter. Therefore, the association argued there was no determination by the association for the court to review.

The court agreed with the association and found that the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. However, the exhaustion rule is not inflexible and need not be followed when the action in challenged as either unconstitutional or outside of a grant of power, when result to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury, Caso v. New York Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., 78 AD2d 41, 45-46 (Fourth Dept. 1980) (citing Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]). The court declined to dismiss the action against the association on this ground.

Judge Centra, however, dismissed the petition against all the respondents due to the fact that the petitioners failed to name a necessary party, to wit: Section Three of the Public High School Athletic Association.

The association's regulations state a pupil shall be eligible for senior high school athletic competition in a sport during each of four consecutive seasons of such sport commencing with the pupil's entry into the ninth grade and prior to graduation.

In this case, Guy was first eligible in ninth grade. His entry into 12th grade marked the fifth season due to his having repeated the 10th grade.

The court found that Guy has already had four years of eligibility and he was not eligible to participate in school athletic competition. The court denied the petition.

The commissioner's regulation state the the eligibility for competition of a pupil who has not obtained the age of 19 years prior to July 1 may be extended ... if sufficient evidence is presented ... to show that the pupil's failure to enter competition during one or more seasons of a sport was caused by illness, accident or similar circumstances beyond the control of the student ... [or] the pupil's failure to enter competition during one or more seasons of a sport [was] cause by such pupil's enrollment in a national or international student exchange program. ... The court found Guy failed to demonstrate evidence of such extenuating circumstances.

Conclusion

Judge Centra concluded that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence that they were entitled to relief on this petition. Guy never appealed any decision to the commissioner and he failed to demonstrate he was entitled to an extension based on accident, illness or similar circumstance beyond his control.

The court denied and dismissed the petition.

Copyright 2005 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.