PELHAM, NY (December 19, 2025) — Pelham Union Free School District Superintendent Cheryl H. Champ’s decision to file a temporary extreme risk protection order against a 16-year-old student has raised concerns about potential litigation risks for the district, stemming from alleged privacy breaches and procedural lapses.
The filing, made on December 5, 2025, in Westchester County Supreme Court under Index No. 51123/2025, targeted student Cyprian Jovani Gardner, known by initials C.J.G., following his arrest for an off-campus armed robbery involving a loaded 3D-printed firearm. The petition cited risks of the student bringing a weapon to school or seeking revenge, based on alleged gang involvement, substance use, poor decision-making and access to weapons.
Attached to the petition were extensive education records, including disciplinary history such as prior suspensions for threats and off-campus misconduct, detailed grades like failing Regents scores and teacher comments, attendance records showing chronic unexcused absences and tardiness, and personal identifiers including full name, date of birth, home address, cell phone number and email.
The court granted the TERPO on December 8, 2025, prohibiting firearm possession or purchase and authorizing searches, with the order in effect pending a March 30, 2026, hearing. The filing was publicly accessible via the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system until sealed on or about December 17, 2025, with some details published by this media outlet during the interim.
The student’s public defender from the Legal Aid Society challenged the attachments as violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, arguing that disclosing personally identifiable information without consent did not meet the health or safety emergency exception under 34 CFR §99.36. The defender noted that records like a prior two-day suspension letter did not justify release, as no emergency existed merely from filing a civil TERPO action.
Electronic filing of the records also potentially violated New York Education Law §2-d on student data privacy, which prohibits unauthorized release of personally identifiable information except in limited circumstances and requires safeguards.
The petition failed to redact confidential personal information, including the minor’s full name and contact details, contrary to Uniform Rule §202.5(e), which requires omission or redaction for minors. The defender requested the court direct compliance and strike the materials as scandalous and prejudicial under CPLR §3024(b).
If the district excluded or suspended the student based on the off-campus arrest without proper procedures, it risks due process violations under Education Law §3214. The district’s Code of Conduct allows discipline for off-campus conduct only if it creates foreseeable substantial disruption to school. No evidence filed with the court shows a §3214 superintendent’s hearing for any long-term suspension exceeding five days, and prior short-term suspensions were noted, but current exclusion may lack an informal conference or hearing.
Publicly alleging gang affiliation and substance use while including the home address and phone could endanger the student’s safety, such as from retaliation, potentially leading to negligence or intentional infliction claims if harm occurs.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and New York State regulations, the district had a Child Find obligation to refer the student to the Committee on Special Education for evaluation due to chronic behavioral issues, poor academic performance and absenteeism suggesting possible disability. No referral is mentioned, risking denial of a free appropriate public education.
Part 201 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education provides disciplinary safeguards for students presumed to have a disability if the school had prior knowledge of indicators like the student’s history. Such students are entitled to protections including manifestation determinations, limits on suspensions and functional behavioral assessments. Apparent exclusion without these safeguards violates these rules.
If suspended or excluded long-term, the district must provide alternative instruction like home tutoring, an obligation heightened for presumed students with disabilities to ensure continuity of education. It is not evident from the records filed with the court if this was provided.
The ERPO filing, based on an arrest without conviction and off-campus conduct with speculative school risk, could be seen as overly broad or premature, potentially exposing the district to counterclaims for abuse of process or malicious prosecution if the order is not finalized.
Broader civil rights claims, such as stigma-plus under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for liberty interest deprivation without due process, could arise from public disclosure of unproven allegations. Sealing mitigates ongoing harm but not initial exposure.
The Legal Aid Society’s letter to the court stated: “We respectfully submit that the exhibits involving our client’s attendance and a disciplinary letter to outline a two-day suspension from school in no way satisfies the evidentiary burden of releasing these records in this filing because this is ‘necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals’ as required under Title 34 of Code of Federal Regulations Part 99.36.”
Community comments highlighted concerns, including: “This is the most profound violation of FERPA I think I’ve ever seen” and “IF the school believes he’s gang affiliated they put his LIFE in danger by posting address and personal info.”
The district faces risks from privacy breaches and special education violations, with ongoing court challenges.
RELATED
Pelham Teen’s Armed Robbery Arrest Sparks School District’s Emergency Gun Restriction Filing
This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.