Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,757

Appeal of EVERETT and KATHLEEN ULMER, on behalf of their children, EVERETT ULMER, JR. and AMANDA ULMER, from action of the Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 13,757

(April 16, 1997)

DougDouglas E. Libby, Esq., attorney for respondent

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioners challenge the exclusion of their children from the Sewanhaka Central High School District. The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioners allege that their children, Everett Jr. and Amanda, have been in attendance in respondent's school district since 1992 and 1993, respectfully, and were excluded from district schools on March 4, 1997.

Respondent contends that when petitioners indicated that they had moved, it requested new registration forms and proof that they were still district residents. Respondent maintains that on November 13, 1996, it made a determination of non-residency based on petitioners' failure to provide the requested proof of residency and notified petitioners that their children would be excluded from district schools on November 27, 1996. Respondent alleges that it extended the exclusion deadline until the end of February in an attempt to obtain the required documentation. By letter dated March 4, 1997, respondent notified petitioners that their children were being excluded because of the non-residency determination which had not been resolved. Petitioners commenced this appeal on March 13, 1997. In their petition, petitioners indicated that they and their children reside at 210 Plainfield Avenue, Floral Park, within respondent's school district and intend to remain there permanently, and provided a school tax statement, a telephone bill, an annual tax and interest statement, and a deed. By letter dated March 14, 1997, respondent notified petitioners that Everett Jr. and Amanda were being readmitted effective March 17, 1997 apparently based on the sworn statements and documentation of residency provided with the petition.

The appeal must be dismissed because the matter is moot. It is well settled that the Commissioner will decide only matters which are in actual controversy and will not render a decision upon facts which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest (Appeal of Berheide, 35 Ed Dept Rep 412; Appeal of Healy, 34 id. 611; Appeal of Lanoir, 34 id. 562; Appeal of Hartmann, 32 id. 640). As of March 17, 1997, petitioners' children were readmitted to respondent's schools as district residents. Therefore, petitioners' challenge to their exclusion is moot.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE