Decision No. 15,470
Appeal of ABIGAIL PECHIN from action of the Board of Education of the Central Square Central School District regarding transportation.
Decision No. 15,470
(September 26, 2006)
Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett & Reitz, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Craig M. Atlas, Esq., of counsel
MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the Board of Education of the Central Square Central School District (“respondent”) to provide her with transportation based on its determination that she is not a homeless unaccompanied youth within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 USC �11431 etseq., “McKinney-Vento”). The appeal must be dismissed.
At the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, petitioner resided with her mother within respondent’s school district and attended the district’s high school. Subsequently, petitioner moved into the residence of a friend and his family on Kellogg Road in Hannibal, New York, outside the district.
On or about March 15, 2006, petitioner requested transportation between the Kellogg Road residence and the district’s high school, claiming that she was a homeless unaccompanied youth within the meaning of McKinney-Vento. On April 4, 2006, the district orally denied petitioner’s transportation request. By decision dated May 3, 2006, the district’s assistant superintendent advised petitioner that a determination had been made that she was not a homeless unaccompanied youth within the meaning of McKinney-Vento. This appeal ensued. Petitioner’s request for interim relief was granted on May 24, 2006.
Petitioner contends that she is a homeless unaccompanied youth within the meaning of McKinney-Vento and, therefore, entitled to transportation between the Kellogg Road residence and the district’s high school. Respondent contends that this appeal is moot because petitioner graduated from the district’s high school on June 24, 2006 and that petitioner is not a homeless unaccompanied youth within the meaning of McKinney-Vento and Education Law �3209.
The appeal must be dismissed as moot. The Commissioner will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest (Appeal of B.K. and R.K., 44 Ed Dept Rep 195, Decision No. 15,146; Appeal of V.L., 44 id. 160, Decision No. 15,132; Appeal of Garvin, 44 id. 30, Decision No. 15,087). On May 24, 2006, an interim order was granted directing respondent to provide petitioner with transportation to and from the Kellogg Road residence and the district’s schools pending the ultimate determination of this appeal. Petitioner received the requested transportation pursuant to my interim order and graduated in June 2006. Accordingly, the matter is moot and the appeal must be dismissed.
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE