EducationLawyers.com

A.V. obo A.V. v. Princeton Public School BOE | Case 20208-25 | 2026-02-27

New Jersey special education due-process decision

Case number
20208-25
Date
2/27/2026
Parties / district (official listing)
A.V. obo A.V. v. Princeton Public School BOE

Open saved decision PDF · Official source

This page reproduces text extracted from the public decision. The saved PDF controls formatting and wording. No attorney-reviewed summary has been added.

Decision text

Page 1

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION DISMISSAL OAL DKT. NO. EDS 20208-25 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2026-40047 A.V. ON BEHALF OF A.V. , Petitioner, v. PRINCETON PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents. _______________________________________ A.V. on behalf of A.V., petitioner, pro se Stacey T. Cherry, Esq., for respondent, (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys) Record Closed: February 23, 2026 Decided: February 27, 2026 BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ: This case arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §§1400 to 1482. Petitioner, A.V. on behalf of minor child A.V. , filed a petition seeking transportation and compensatory education.

Page 2

OAL DCKT. NO. EDS 20208-25 2 The due process petition was transmitted by the Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE), to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on December 19, 2025, as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F- 1 to -13. The matter was assigned on December 19, 2025. At the onset of the case the petitioner was represented by Bradley Flynn, Esq. A prehearing conference was scheduled on December 22, 2025. At that conference the parties requested a settlement conference with Judge Jacob Gertsman. On January 29, 2026, ALJ Gertsman had a settlement conference with the parties. The matter did not settle. On February 2, 2026, the parties requested extra time to discuss the matter and felt it could be resolved without hearing. On February 23, 2026, this tribunal received an email from A.V. stating that she was appearing pro se and Attorney Flynn was no longer representing her. A pre-hearing conference was held on February 23, 2026, and on the record, petitioner stated that she was pro se and Attorney Flynn was no longer representing her. Attorney Flynn placed his removal also on the record and represented that a substitution of attorney form was filed. Based on the petitioner’s request, Attorney Flynn was released from his representation. Petitioner stated she wanted to withdraw her petition. A.V. was sworn in and her withdrawal colloquy was placed on the record. It is hereby ORDERED that petitioners petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Page 3

OAL DCKT. NO. EDS 20208-25 3 This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (2025) and is appealable by filing a complaint and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (2025). If the parent or adult student feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services, this concern should be communicated in writing to the Director, Office of Special Education. February 27, 2026 DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ Date Received at Agency Date Mailed to Parties: JMB/am/gd

Research New Jersey special education decisions