DECISION & ORDER The e-filed documents for Motion Sequence 001, listed by NYSCEF document numbers “1,” through “44,” including an ex-parte affirmation for in-camera review from Joseph Giovannetti, Esq. and annexed supporting documents related to the ongoing investigation, have been read and considered on this motion. This is a hybrid CPLR Article 78 and declaratory judgment proceeding. Petitioners in this action are parents who commenced this action on behalf of their minor children who are students (hereinafter “Students”) at various school districts listed in the petition. The first named Respondent is the New York State Department of Health (hereinafter “DOH”) followed by the various school districts (hereinafter “School Districts” and collectively “Respondents”). Petitioners moved by order to show cause for an emergency temporary restraining order seeking the following relief: 1) to restrain Respondents from removing Students from school; 2) to enjoin Respondents, and/or any of their agents acting under their direction, from removing Students from school; and 3) to allow the Students to proceed with initials to protect their identity and their privacy interest. This Court granted Petitioners’ request to allow Students to proceed with initials. Petitioners also seek the following relief: 1) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §7803 finding DOH’s determination that Students’ immunization records were fraudulent, that School Districts cannot accept certificates of immunization as valid proof of inoculation, that positive titers or revaccination are the only valid means of proof, and their subsequent action prohibiting Students from attending school (collectively, “Determinations”) were made in violation of lawful procedure, were arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion; 2) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §3001 declaring that DOH’s Determinations violate New York Constitution, article. III §I, Public Health Law (“PHL”) §2164, N.Y. Const. art I §VI (Due Process), and is ultra vires; 3) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §3001 declaring the School District’s determinations to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, of N.Y. Const. art. I §VI (Due Process) and the New York State Education Law; 4) a judgment annulling the DOH’s Determinations and School District’s determinations and declaring them to be void and unenforceable pursuant to CPLR §3001; 5) an order directing School Districts to allow Students to continue their education in their respective schools; and 6) preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Respondents from excluding Students or taking any other punitive action against them based on their proof of immunization unless Respondents afford Students the process due under the New York State Constitution and Education Law. On September 20, 2024, this Court held a hearing regarding Petitioners’ request for an emergency temporary restraining order. At this hearing, there were procedural issues regarding notice of this proceeding on several of the schools. Petitioners argued that the DOH unilaterally determined that Students’ records of immunization were invalid. Counsel for Petitioners appeared as well as counsel for the DOH and counsel for the School Districts who received notice of the application. Petitioners contend that the Students whose records were deemed invalid were then excluded from school and given a choice to either submit positive titers (by undergoing a serology test) or get vaccinated again. Petitioners argued that the School Districts, under the direction of the DOH, have been punishing Students who have previously provided lawful proof of immunization without due process and proof, thereby depriving Students of their fundamental right to receive an education in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Education Law, and Public Health Law. In opposition, the DOH argued that there is undisputable proof that the vaccination records of the Students are fraudulent, as Julie DeVuono, the nurse practitioner that allegedly administered the Students’ vaccinations, has been criminally prosecuted for multiple felony charges related to a fraudulent vaccination scheme. DOH further argued that because the Students’ vaccination records are fraudulent, allowing the Students to return to school without valid proof of immunization would pose a health risk to other individuals within the respective schools. The School Districts contend that they were acting under the direction of the DOH and therefore take no position in the matter, other than to follow DOH’s directives pursuant to the Public Health Law and Education Law. On September 20, 2024, at the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned dismissed this action as it pertains to the Suffolk County entities pursuant to CPLR §503. Further, the undersigned determined that as it pertains to the temporary restraining order, Petitioners cannot demonstrate that Respondents’ Determinations are causing irreparable harm, and that the equities strongly favor enforcement of PHL §2164. The undersigned was informed that some Students had already been removed from school as of the date of the filing of the order to show cause. The undersigned determined that Petitioners could easily remedy the situation and prevent being removed from school by obtaining required vaccinations or undergoing serology tests. Additionally, irreparable harm cannot be claimed when the letters informing parents that the Students would be excluded from school were mailed on September 9, 2024 — and some before September 9, 2024 — giving Petitioners ample opportunity to make this application earlier or remedy the matter without judicial intervention. This Court also noted that Petitioners were noticed of the ability to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Education and had not done so. Filing such an appeal would stay the Determinations and allow the Students to remain in school pending the appeal. Additionally, the DOH stated that in the event the Students refused both a serology test and revaccination, the Students could elect to be home schooled. The parties were invited to submit additional evidence in support or in opposition to this application. Additionally, the DOH was directed to submit, for in-camera review, documentation to substantiate their argument that the Students’ vaccination records were fraudulent. The DOH initially submitted an affirmation in opposition to Petitioners’ request for an emergency temporary restraining order. After the hearing, the DOH submitted additional papers, including: 1) an affirmation in opposition to the order to show cause; 2) a memorandum of law in opposition; and 3) ex-parte submissions for an in-camera review. This Court is in receipt of the DOH’s in-camera documentation, including an ex-parte affirmation from Joseph Giovannetti, Esq., Director of the Bureau of Investigations within the Division of Legal Affairs at the DOH and supporting documents relating to the DOH’s ongoing investigation with respect to the events that led to the Students’ exclusion. Matthew J. Mehnert, Esq. submitted an affirmation in opposition on behalf of the following School Districts: Wantagh Union Free School District, Massapequa Union Free School District, Sayville Union Free School District, Middle Country Central School District, South Country Central School District, Huntington Union Free School District, Three Village Central School District, and Riverhead Central School District. Steven A. Goodstadt, Esq. submitted an affirmation in opposition on behalf of the following School Districts: Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District, North Merrick Union Free School District, Plainedge Union Free School District, Seaford Union Free School District, Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District, Bay Shore Union Free School District, Elwood Union Free School District, Islip Union Free School District, Kings Park Central School District (incorrectly listed in the caption as Kings Park Union Free School District), Longwood Central School District, Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District, Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, Port Jefferson Union Free School District, Sachem Central School District, Smithtown Central School District, and South Huntington Union Free School District. Factual Background — DOH’s Investigation Turning now to the additional relief sought by the Petitioners, this hybrid CPLR Article 78 and declaratory judgment proceeding stems from DOH’s ongoing investigation of a fraud committed against the DOH and various School Districts throughout Long Island. As discussed in the DOH’s memorandum of law, the Department’s Bureau of Investigations, within the Department’s Division of Legal Affairs, obtained evidence that Julie DeVuono of her now defunct Suffolk County-based practice Wild Child Pediatrics (hereinafter “Wild Child”) provided thousands of fraudulent pediatric vaccination records to patients in an apparent covert scheme in contravention of New York State Law. DeVuono and Wild Child were criminally prosecuted for multiple felony charges related to a fraudulent vaccination scheme in which thousands of individuals received fake COVID-19 vaccination records from DeVuono between June 15, 2021 and January 27, 2022. A subsequent investigation by the Suffolk County DA revealed an entirely separate scheme by DeVuono from February 10, 2019 to August 14, 2021 during which she submitted false prescriptions of oxycodone to local pharmacies with false patient names, none of whom were her actual patients and some of whom were her relatives. DeVuono and Wild Child were criminally sentenced in June 2024 pursuant to a plea agreement in which both pleaded guilty to multiple felonies. DeVuono closed Wild Child as a condition of her plea and is no longer permitted to practice medicine in New York. Concurrent with the Suffolk County DA’s criminal investigation and prosecution of DeVuono, the Department’s Bureau of Investigations investigated DeVuono’s pediatric vaccination practice dating back to June 2019. Through the DOH’S ongoing investigation, the Bureau of Investigations has obtained evidence indicating that DeVuono provided thousands of fraudulent standard pediatric vaccinations against life-threatening, vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles and polio, to patients beginning in and around June 2019 and lasting even beyond the time of her arrest in or around February 2022. On June 6, 2024, the DOH served a statement of charges and Notice of Hearing on Julie DeVuono. The DOH has charged DeVuono with violating the PHL by reporting to NYSIIS at least 226 separate vaccinations to at least 26 pediatric patients that were never actually administered. NYSIIS is the public-health database developed, maintained, and run by DOH to collect, store, and disclose vaccination records, per a mandate under PHL §2168. After her January 2022 arrest, the Suffolk and Nassau County Health Departments issued recommendations to schools in their district by letter, recommending that schools not accept immunization records from Wild Child without further proof of vaccination. On August 2, 2024, the DOH informed healthcare providers, public entities, schools, and regulated entities through the Integrated Health Alert and Notification System (IHANS) that it had investigated DeVuono and Wild Child for creating and entering into NYSIIS fraudulent pediatric vaccination records. In part, the communication advised schools that the DOH was not removing all Wild Child/DeVuono records from NYSIIS wholesale, instead the DOH was conducting a review of all Wild Child vaccination records individually to identify fraudulent records. The communication advised schools not to accept any paper immunization records that were not already entered into NYSIIS. PHL §2168(3)(a) requires healthcare providers to accurately report to NYSIIS all immunizations administered to children under nineteen years of age within fourteen days of administration. As authorized users of NYSIIS, schools have access to the system for the “purpose of verifying immunization status for eligibility for admission.” (PHL §2168[8][d]). The Court notes that Petitioners have not submitted, either to chambers or on NYSCEF, an amended petition reflecting the remaining Students who claim to have been impacted by the DOH’s Determinations. DOH has conclusively determined that at least 59 Students who are named as Petitioners in this action, have invalid vaccination records and have been excluded. Additionally, Petitioners have not complied with the order of this Court, in that Petitioners failed to serve a copy of the order to show cause upon counsel for some of the Respondents by September 20, 2024, as specifically directed in the order. The Students whose exclusions from school which are the subject of this litigation fall into one of two groups: (1) those whose records were reviewed on a particularized, individual basis and were determined by DOH to be fraudulent; and (2) those who submitted paper-only (i.e., not entered into NYSIIS) immunization records from Wild Child. Applicable Law In a hybrid CPLR Article 78 and declaratory judgment proceeding, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR Article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek to recover damages and declaratory relief, on the other hand. (Kelly v. Farmingdale State Coll., State Univ. of New York, 215 A.D.3d 748, 750, 188 N.Y.S.3d 79, 83 [2d Dept. 2023]). “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment. Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action.” (Id. [internal citations omitted]). CPLR §7804(f) provides that: “The respondent may raise an objection in point of law by setting it forth in his answer or by a motion to dismiss the petition [i]f the motion is denied, the court shall permit the respondent to answer.” (See Wood v. Glass, 226 A.D.2d 387, 388, 640 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 [2d Dept. 1996]). As a result of the mandatory language contained in CPLR §7804(f), the petition may not be decided on the merits without allowing the appellants the opportunity to interpose an answer unless the facts are so fully presented in the motion papers that it is clear that there are no factual disputes and no prejudice will result to the parties. (See Wood v. Glass, Id.; see also Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 N.Y.2d 100, 480 N.Y.S.2d 190, 469 N.E.2d 511 [2d Dept. 1984]). “On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CPLR §3211(a)(7), the Court affords the pleading “a liberal construction” and must “accept the facts as alleged…as true, accord [the nonmoving party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.” (Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88, 638 N.E.2d 511, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972 [1994]; see also 34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., 39 NY3d 44, 51, 178 N.Y.S.3d 1, 198 N.E.3d 1282 [2022]).” (See Taxi Tours Inc. v. Go N.Y. Tours, Inc., 41 N.Y.3d 991, 993 [2024]). “When evidentiary material is considered, the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, again dismissal should not eventuate. (Rappaport v. International Playtex Corp., 43 AD2d 393, 394-395; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3211.36; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3211:25, p 31).” (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 372 N.E.2d 17 [1977]; see also, Atane Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, D.P.C. v. Nassau Cnty., 227 A.D.3d 708, 710, 211 N.Y.S.3d 169 [2d Dept. 2024]). Here, this Court is considering the DOH’s affirmations in opposition and memorandum of law as an informal motion to dismiss pursuant to CLR §3211(a)(7). Petitioners have notice of the DOH’s submissions which are clearly postured as a motion to dismiss. Petitioners did not submit a reply or otherwise oppose the DOH’s submissions. Petitioners’ Request for a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §7803 This Court now turns to Petitioners’ argument claiming that DOH’s Determinations were made in violation of lawful procedure, were arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the School Districts’ determination to exclude the Students is arbitrary and capricious. “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts.” (Pell v. Bd. of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale, 34 N.Y. 2d. 222, 231 [1974]). Petitioners maintain that the School Districts’ determination was made without a rational basis since it was allegedly based on some unspecific communication from the DOH. Additionally, Petitioners maintain that the various School Districts decided to exclude Students without regard to any particularized facts. Further, Petitioners argue that the School Districts’ determination is arbitrary and capricious because it is devoid of any facts indicating that Students provided the School Districts with a false immunization record. In opposition, DOH contends that its Determinations that the vaccination records in question are fraudulent were not rendered or deemed arbitrary and capricious simply by the DOH not sharing sensitive details of its ongoing and pending investigation publicly or individually to each of the families impacted. Further, the DOH notes that the investigation is still pending and the administrative hearing against DeVuono has not yet been held. The applicable standard of review pursuant to CPLR §7803(3) is “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.” (Rosenberg v. New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation, & Historic Pres., 94 A.D.3d 1006, 943 N.Y.S.2d 123, 124 [2d Dept. 2012]; see also, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230-231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974]; CPLR §7803[3]). An action or determination is arbitrary and capricious when “it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts.” (Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d 424, 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 [2009]; see also Matter of Ward v. City of Long Beach, 20 N.Y.3d 1042, 1043, 962 N.Y.S.2d 587, 985 N.E.2d 898 [2013]; Matter of Pell, 34 N.Y.2d at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974]). If the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must be sustained “even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency.” (Matter of Peckham, 12 N.Y.3d at 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813; see also Matter of Ward, 20 N.Y.3d at 1043, 962 N.Y.S.2d 587, 985 N.E.2d 898; Matter of Ferrelli, 226 A.D.3d 504, 504, 211 N.Y.S.3d 1, 5 [2024]). In the instant matter, the DOH’s Determination to exclude the students who presented paper records from DeVuono and/or Wild Child were based on a more than rational basis as they were founded upon a years-long investigation regarding the fraudulent vaccination records administered by DeVuono. Additionally, DOH submitted an ex-parte affirmation accompanied by specific documents reviewed during DOH’s investigation which supports DOH’s rationale for finding the subject vaccination records to be fraudulent. Petitioners’ contention that the DOH and the School Districts made a determination without regard to any particularized facts is misguided. The petition failed to set forth allegations sufficient to make out a claim that the Determinations of the DOH were “made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.” (See CPLR §7803[3]). Based upon the submissions listed above, this Court finds that the Respondents had a more than rational basis for their determinations and therefore said determinations cannot be considered arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners’ Request for a Declaration that DOH’s Determinations Violate N.Y. Const. art. III §I, PHL §2164, N.Y. Const. art I §VI (Due Process), and are Ultra Vires. Turning to Petitioners’ relief for a declaratory judgment, the Petitioners are challenging DOH’s purported amendment of PHL §2164, arguing such amendment is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and in violation of N.Y. Const. art. III, §I. Specifically, Petitioners allege that the DOH amended PHL §2164 by removing the provision allowing for certificates of immunization as valid proof of immunization; adding titers in its place; and, requiring Students to get revaccinated, and thus is in violation of N.Y. Const. art III, §I. PHL §2164 requires Students to submit certificates of immunization to attend school. PHL §2164(5) states that the “health practitioner who administers such immunizing agent…shall give a certificate of such immunization to the person in parental relation to such child.” In opposition, the DOH argues that the Petitioners contention that the DOH amended PHL §2164 is without merit. DOH contends that it is undoubtedly empowered to “enforce the public health law” and “establish and operate such adult and child immunization programs as are necessary to prevent or minimize the spread of disease and to protect the public health including quality assurance for immunization related activities and other immunization related activities.” (See PHL §206[1][1]). The DOH states that it is not required by law to accept all certificates of vaccination, especially in this circumstance where the vaccination provider has been criminally convicted for falsifying vaccination records. A typical point of dispute in this area is the legislature’s delegation to an agency of the authority to administer by rule a statute as enacted by the legislature. (See Matter of Levine v. Whalen, 39 N.Y.2d 510, 515, 384 N.Y.S.2d 721, 349 N.E.2d 820 [1976]; see also Matter of Campagna v. Shaffer, 73 N.Y.2d 237, 242, 538 N.Y.S.2d 933, 536 N.E.2d 368 [1989]). If a rule exceeds the parameters of the power granted by the legislature to the enacting agency — that is, “if an agency was not delegated the authority to [establish the] rule, then it would usurp the authority of the legislative branch by enacting th[at] [regulation].” (Greater N.Y. Taxi Assn. v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm., 25 N.Y.3d 600, 608, 15 N.Y.S.3d 725, 36 N.E.3d 632 [2015]). Consequently, “[t]he [overlapping] issues of delegation of power and separation of powers…are often considered together.” (Id.; NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Pres., 27 N.Y.3d 174, 178, 51 N.E.3d 512, 515-16 [2016]). Petitioners are incorrect in their contention as the DOH did not amend PHL §2164, but merely enforced PHL for the safety of other students by directing these Students to undergo a serology test and/or get revaccinated because their certificates of immunization have been deemed invalid by the DOH. The DOH only took steps to invalidate the fraudulent vaccination records in this case after a meticulous years-long investigation and intensive evidence-based review. As the DOH states in its papers, the only way to validate the Students’ immunization certificates is by either submitting to a serology test or by providing proof of receiving at least one dose of the proper vaccinations. As such, Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have a cause of action demonstrating that the DOH has amended PHL §2164. Petitioners’ Request for a Declaration that Respondents Violated the New York State Education Law Petitioners maintain that the DOH was required to comply with the process due under EDL §3214 before prohibiting Students from attending school since the exclusion here is the equivalent of expulsion, is punitive in nature, and absence is a severe consequence. EDL §3214 requires a finding that the Students were insubordinate, disorderly, violent, or disruptive. DOH contends that EDL §3214 is inapplicable to the exclusions at hand. DOH further contends that the Students’ exclusions are mandated by PHL §2164, as the DOH has determined that the Students possess invalid vaccination records. Specifically, the DOH argues that PHL §2164(7)(a) provides that children are not permitted to attend school without proper proof of immunization. As to the School Districts’ position, they maintain that they received directives from the DOH to exclude certain Students whose vaccination records from Wild Child were either removed from NYSIIS or existed only as paper records that were never inputted into NYSIIS in accordance with PHL §2164. The School Districts contend that they are required to comply with directives from the DOH and did so in the instant matter. Additionally, the School Districts assert that EDL §3214 is not applicable here and any arguments relating to a right to a hearing must be ignored. (citing to, Williams v. Orchard Park Sch. Dist., 62 Misc.3d 1227(A), 113 N.Y.S.3d 825 [Sup. Ct., Erie Cnty., 2019]). Here, Petitioners have misapplied EDL §3214. The statute applies only to behavioral-based exclusions from schools. However, in the matter at hand, Students are only being prohibited from attending school because of invalid and fraudulent vaccination records, as mandated by PHL §2164(7)(a). As such, Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have a cause of action as to their allegations that the Respondents violated the New York State Education law. Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment and the New York State Constitution Petitioners contend that the Respondents violated the United States and New York Constitutions’ Due Process Clauses. Petitioners maintain that Students have a property interest in receiving a public education. Petitioners further maintain that the DOH deprived Students of property without due process of law since they are excluding or expelling Students from school without providing them with the bare minimum of notice and an opportunity to be heard. (See Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565, 573-574 [1975]). Additionally, Petitioners maintain that DOH deprived Students of the right to attend public school when it determined that their allegedly valid immunization records were fraudulent and prohibited them from attending school. Petitioners argue that the DOH and School Districts did not give Students any due process whatsoever. In response, Respondents argue that the Petitioners did not seek an order from the Commissioner of Education nor did they seek a hearing of any sort. Respondents note, and as previously stated, the Students were given the option to appeal the DOH’s findings pursuant to EDL §310. That statute provides parents with the ability to appeal any official act of any school authority to the Commissioner of Education and provides Students with adequate procedural due process. If the parents decided to appeal the decision of the School Districts, the Students would receive a stay of the Respondents’ determinations and would be able to attend school until a final determination was made. Respondents contend that the Students have also been provided with alternatives that their parents have chosen to forgo: Students could obtain a serology test, receive another dose of immunizations, or be home schooled. In the instant matter, the record establishes that the Students have not suffered a violation of their due process rights. Pursuant to PHL §2164(7)(b) and EDL §310, the Students have been offered multiple alternative remedies, which they have chosen not to pursue. PHL §2164(7)(a) mandates all students to provide their respective schools with proper, valid immunizations to be able to attend. When the DOH conclusively determined that the Students’ vaccination records were invalid, parents were provided with letters notifying them of the status of the Students’ records, as well as notification that the Students would be excluded from school if the status of the vaccination records was not remedied. Based upon the foregoing, Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have a cause of action regarding the allegations that Respondents violated the United States and New York Constitutions’ Due Process Clauses. Preliminary Injunction “Although the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a trial, the remedy is considered a drastic one, which should be used sparingly. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor. The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court.” (Armanida Realty Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 126 A.D.3d 894, 894-95, 3 N.Y.S.3d 612, 613 [2d Dept. 2015]). After a review of the arguments of all parties, this Court denies Petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction. As the undersigned stated at the September 20, 2024 hearing, the Petitioners cannot demonstrate that Respondents’ determinations are causing irreparable harm, and that the equities strongly favor enforcement of PHL §2164. Additionally, this Court determines that Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits given the overwhelming evidence amassed by the DOH regarding the fraudulent vaccination records administered by DeVuono and/or Wild Child. This is further supported by the DOH’s ex-parte submissions. Based upon these arguments, Petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction is denied. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s application for an order and judgment granting the following: 1) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §7803 finding DOH’s Determinations that Students’ immunization records were fraudulent, that School Districts cannot accept certificates of immunization as valid proof of inoculation, that positive titers or revaccination are the only valid means of proof, and their subsequent action prohibiting Students from attending school were made in violation of lawful procedure, were arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion; 2) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §3001 declaring that DOH’s Determinations violate N.Y. Const. art. III §I, PHL §2164, N.Y. Const. art I §VI (Due Process), and is ultra vires; 3) a judgment pursuant to CPLR §3001 declaring the School Districts’ determinations to be in violation of N.Y. Const. art. I §VI (Due Process) and the New York State Education Law; 4) a judgment annulling Respondents’ determinations and declaring them to be void and unenforceable pursuant to CPLR §3001; 5) an order directing School Districts to allow Students to continue their education in their respective schools; and 6) preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Respondents from excluding Students or taking any other punitive action against them based on their proof of immunization unless Respondents afford Students the process due under the New York State Constitution and Education Law is hereby DENIED and the Petition is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that all requests for relief not specifically addressed herein are DENIED. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Settle Judgment. Dated: October 01, 2024
