Can Letitia James Stop the Closure of Preston High School? The Law, the Hearing, and the Big Question Ahead
Can Letitia James Stop the Closure of Preston High School? The Law, the Hearing, and the Big Question Ahead
On April 8, 2025, the auditorium at Lehman High School in the Bronx was packed wall to wall. People stood in the aisles. Others leaned against the back walls or waited in the halls just for a chance to hear. The energy wasn’t angry or chaotic—it was focused. Determined. Testimony after testimony filled the room, not with outrage, but with clarity and purpose. Students, parents, alumni, educators, and local officials all came to speak on one thing: the closure of Preston High School.
This wasn’t a rally. It was a reckoning.
Preston, a Catholic all-girls high school in Throggs Neck, has served generations of young women, most of them Latina and from working-class immigrant families. Its sudden closure announcement didn’t just rattle a community—it raised serious legal and governance questions.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James sat front and center, eyes locked in, taking notes, listening to every speaker. And now the question sits in the air, thick with urgency: Is there a legal path for her to step in? And if so, did what happened on April 8 build that case?
The Attorney General’s Legal Power
The NYS Attorney General oversees charitable organizations, including religious orders and private schools, under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL) and the Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law (EPTL). Through the Charities Bureau, the AG has the authority to:
Investigate governance issues within nonprofits
Intervene in transactions that affect charitable assets (like the sale of a school building)
Seek injunctions to prevent actions that would irreparably harm the public interest
Restructure or remove board members who violate their fiduciary duties
Legal intervention requires more than community outrage. It requires evidence of harm, mismanagement, or a breakdown in the nonprofit’s duty to serve its mission. The April 8 hearing offered testimony that, for many in the room, raised those very issues.
What Came Out of the April 8 Hearing
Lack of Notice and Transparency
Several parents shared that the first time they heard about the closure was through a vague email. No town hall. No advanced notice. No data or explanation. Just an announcement.
“We sent five certified letters. They told us to go watch a video.”
Councilmember Amanda Farías and Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson testified they had not been contacted or consulted at any point. Councilmember Amanda Farias is Preston alumna.
A Rejected Offer, No Clear Reason
Testimony revealed that the Bally’s Foundation had offered $8.5 million—reportedly the Sisters’ asking price—with a proposal to lease the school back for $1 a year over 25 years. It was a deal that, according to several speakers, would have kept the school open while satisfying the religious order’s financial goals.
“This wasn’t just a plan—it was money on the table. And they shut the door on it.”
Board Overhaul and Potential Conflicts
Several witnesses, including former trustees, described how the board had been restructured with little warning. Independent professionals—a sitting judge, a CPA, an Ivy League professor—were removed and replaced with members of the religious order and their relatives.
“We were removed mid-meeting. No discussion, no process. They became the board and took full control.”
Claims of Viability
Supporters of Preston came prepared with numbers and outside validation. They cited a report from Harvard Business School’s Community Practice group that determined the school could remain operational with modest fundraising and refinancing.
Donations had reportedly grown from $100,000 to $600,000 in six years. A new $50,000 endowment gift had just been pledged. Enrollment was recovering. Viability wasn’t speculative—it was documented.
The Legal Standard for Intervention—And Whether It's Been Met
Under New York law, the Attorney General has authority to intervene in the operations of nonprofits—especially religious and educational charities—if their leadership violates fiduciary duties, acts with a conflict of interest, causes irreparable harm to the public interest, or disregards viable alternatives that would uphold the organization's mission.
Let’s break down these standards and compare them directly to what came out of the April 8th hearing.
Fiduciary Breach
Legal Standard: Board members of a nonprofit must act in good faith and in alignment with the organization’s charitable mission.
Hearing Evidence:
No public financial concerns were raised before the closure announcement.
Five certified letters requesting a meeting were denied or ignored.
A serious, funded offer to save the school was rejected without explanation.
Former board members described how all agreed-upon benchmarks were met—only to be dismissed.
A court could interpret the rejection of viable offers, failure to engage stakeholders, and the removal of the board as signs of a breakdown in fiduciary duty.
Conflict of Interest
Legal Standard: Leadership cannot make decisions in which they stand on both sides of a transaction.
Hearing Evidence:
The RDC appointed themselves to the board after dissolving the previous one.
At least one new appointee was reportedly related to a Sister.
The same people controlling the property sale also control the institution making that decision.
This kind of overlapping control could meet the legal standard for a conflict of interest.
Irreparable Harm to the Public Interest
Legal Standard: The AG can act to prevent irreversible damage to the public good.
Hearing Evidence:
Preston serves primarily Latina and immigrant girls, nearly all of whom go on to college.
Some students lost scholarships because the school was removed from application portals.
The Preston Center of Compassion, a lifeline for Bronx families, is also in jeopardy.
The potential loss goes beyond education—it affects health, stability, and opportunity for hundreds of Bronx families.
Viable Alternatives Ignored
Legal Standard: The AG may intervene when a nonprofit ignores or rejects reasonable alternatives to continue its mission.
Hearing Evidence:
The Bally’s Foundation offered a full purchase price and favorable leaseback terms.
NYC’s Economic Development Corporation was prepared to assist.
Elected officials reported that all attempts to communicate with the Sisters were rebuffed.
A refusal to consider well-supported alternatives may be interpreted as an abandonment of charitable responsibility.
What Happens Now?
The testimony on April 8 laid out facts and circumstances that could potentially meet the legal threshold for intervention by the Attorney General. Whether those facts are sufficient under the law depends on what comes next: documentation, internal records, and further inquiry by Letitia James and her office.
The tools exist. The facts are now on record. The decision rests with the Office of the Attorney General.
And the other question remains: Did the pro-Preston speakers do enough to make the legal case? That’s the open question now before us.
