MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Lindenhurst Union Free School District ("respondent") that her children, Heather and Marshall, are not residents of the district. The appeal must be dismissed.

On February 26, 1998, respondent’s residency officer, ZoeAnn Deeds, notified petitioner and her husband that Heather and Marshall were not residents of the district. Ms. Deeds gave petitioner ten days to submit further information to establish the children’s right to attend school in the district. On March 6, 1998, Ms. Deeds offered petitioner another opportunity to submit information. Thereafter, on March 23, 1998, a hearing was held before Ms. Deeds, at which petitioner, Mr. Polovsky, Gerald Feeney, the district's investigator, Diane Fanelli, a special education teacher, Thomas Dolise, a middle school social worker, and Eugene Barnosky, respondent's attorney, were present.

On April 3, 1998, Ms. Deeds determined that Heather and Marshall were not residents of the district. Her determination was based on the testimony of Ms. Fanelli and Mr. Dolise, and Mr. Feeney's surveillance reports. Petitioner commenced this appeal on April 18, 1998 and requested interim relief to permit her children to remain in school until the end of the school year. On April 27, 1998, respondent stipulated that it would permit petitioner's children to remain in school for the balance of the school year, thus obviating the need for interim relief.

On June 4, 1998, counsel for respondent informed petitioner in writing that Ms. Deeds had rescinded her determination dated April 3, 1998. Therefore, respondent considered the appeal to be moot. However, petitioner informed my Office of Counsel that she did not wish to withdraw her appeal.

It is well settled that the Commissioner of Education will only decide 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 Boehm, 37 Ed Dept Rep 208; Appeal of Postal, 36 id. 1). Respondent's rescission of its April 3, 1998 decision lays to rest the issue in controversy in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE