Skip to main content

Decision No. 13,770

Appeal of SOLOMON SCHLESINGER, DAVID FARBER, and HERMAN FRIEDMAN from action of the Board of Education of the East Ramapo Central School District regarding a bond referendum.

Decision No. 13,770

(May 22, 1997)

Carlet, Garrison & Klein, attorneys for petitioners, Norman I. Klein, Esq., of counsel

Greenberg, Wanderman & Fromson, attorneys for respondent, Stephen M. Fromson, Esq., of counsel

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioners, residents of respondent's school district, challenge the form of the proposition to have been voted on by district residents on January 28, 1997. The appeal must be dismissed.

On December 3, 1996, respondent adopted a resolution calling for a special district meeting to have been held on January 28, 1997 and for publication of the corresponding legal notice. The purpose of the meeting was to vote on a single proposition which would have authorized the levying of a tax of $22,062,000 to be collected in installments and to be used for the reconstruction of various buildings, the construction and reconstruction of various paved areas and outdoor athletic fields, and the purchase of school buses. Petitioners commenced this appeal contending that the legal notice did not comply with the requirements of Education Law '416(2) and Local Finance Law '41.10 and requested that the special district meeting be cancelled. Petitioners' request for interim relief pending a decision on the merits was granted on January 13, 1997.

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). On January 28, 1997, respondent rescinded the resolution it had adopted on December 3, 1996 which called for a special election to vote on the proposition which is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, petitioners' claims concerning the form of the proposition are moot.