Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 15,741

Appeal of MARY OVILE, on behalf of her children Gina and Joseph, from action of the Board of Education of the Locust Valley Central School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 15,741

(April 14, 2008)

Erlich, Frazer & Feldman, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Laura A. Ferrugiari, Esq., of counsel

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Locust Valley Central School District (“respondent”) that her children, Gina and Joseph, are not district residents.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner alleges that in September 2007, she, her husband, and Gina and Joseph resided with petitioner’s brother and his family at Bayville Road, within the district.  By letter dated September 25, 2007, respondent’s Director of Personnel and Management Services (“Director”) advised petitioner that, after an investigation, the district determined that her children were not district residents, and were not entitled to attend district schools.  By a second letter dated September 28, 2007, the Director confirmed that finding, and advised that petitioner’s children would be excluded from school as of October 5, 2007.

On October 3, 2007, petitioner provided the district with a copy of a lease for premises located at 32 First Avenue, Locust Valley, an address within the district, for the period commencing November 1, 2007, and ending June 1, 2008.  Based upon that lease, on October 4, 2007, respondent agreed to allow petitioner’s children to return to school as residents as of November 1, 2007, and they were indeed re-admitted as of that date.

Petitioner asks me to determine that her children were district residents for the period prior to November 1, 2007, when they were re-admitted as residents.

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).  Petitioner’s children were re-admitted to the district as residents as of November 1, 2007.  Accordingly, the childrens’ residency is no longer at issue and no further meaningful relief can be granted.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE