Skip to main content

Decision No. 16,467


 Application of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LAKE GEORGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT for the removal of Daniel Cracco as a member of the Board of Education of the Lake George Central School District.

Decision No. 16,467

(April 15, 2013)

Girvin & Ferlazzo, PC, attorneys for petitioner, Kristine Amodeo Lanchantin, Esq., of counsel

KING, JR., Commissioner.--The Board of Education of the Lake George Central School District (“petitioner” or “board”) seeks the removal of Daniel Cracco (“respondent”) from his position as a member of the board. The application must be denied.

Petitioner alleges that respondent should be removed from office based upon his alleged willful violation of law and neglect of duty. Petitioner also alleges that respondent breached his fiduciary duty as a board member and violated several provisions of the district’s policy relating to board member duties and responsibilities.

Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on September 29, 2011. By Order to Show Cause dated December 27, 2012, a hearing was scheduled in this matter. Based on respondent’s subsequent resignation from the board in March 2013, discussed more fully below, the hearing was cancelled.

Respondent generally denies petitioner’s allegations and argues that the application fails to state a cause of action and that the allegations, if true, represent an “isolated incident” and “do not constitute a sufficiently serious basis to justify” his removal. Respondent also contends that the application must be denied because it was not properly authorized by the board.

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 a Student with a Disability, 48 Ed Dept Rep 532, Decision No. 15,940; Appeal of M.M., 48 id. 527, Decision No. 15,937; Appeal of Embro, 48 id. 204, Decision No. 15,836). In March 2013, petitioner’s attorney notified my Office of Counsel that respondent had resigned his seat on the board of education. Accordingly, because respondent is no longer a member of the board, petitioner’s application to remove him is moot and must be denied.

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