Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 16,122

Appeal of MARK SCHARF, on behalf of his daughter DANIELLA, from action of the Board of Education of the Herricks Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 16,122

(August 9, 2010)

Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Lawrence J. Tenenbaum, Esq., of counsel

STEINER, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Herricks Union Free School District (“respondent”) denying transportation to his daughter, Daniella, for the 2009-2010 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

In March 2009, Daniella’s mother requested nonpublic school transportation for Daniella to the Hebrew Academy of Nassau County (“HANC”) for the 2009-2010 school year.  This transportation request was approved by respondent.  On August 28, 2009, petitioner requested that the transportation be changed from HANC to Yeshiva University High School (“Yeshiva”).  By letter dated September 8, 2009, the district’s transportation director informed petitioner that the request was denied because it was filed after the April 1 deadline and the explanation offered by petitioner was not “legally sufficient.”  Petitioner appealed to respondent.  By letter dated September 18, 2009, the district’s transportation director informed petitioner that respondent denied his appeal.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on November 4, 2009.

Petitioner maintains that he demonstrated good cause for the requested change in transportation, but that respondent arbitrarily and capriciously relied on the April 1 deadline.

Respondent claims that it properly denied petitioner’s request as untimely, petitioner’s explanation for the delay was not legally sufficient and transportation to Yeshiva would result in additional expense to the district.  Respondent also argues that petitioner lacks standing.

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 Tine, 46 Ed Dept Rep 579, Decision No. 15,600; Appeal of N.C., 46 id. 358, Decision No. 15,532; Appeal of Lombardo, 46 id. 282, Decision No. 15,508).  The 2009-2010 school year has ended and, therefore, the issue of Daniella’s transportation for that school year is moot.

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE.