Decision No. 18,334
Appeal of MALLARY BENNETT, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District regarding residency.
Decision No. 18,334
(August 22, 2023)
J. Iandolo Law, PC, attorney for petitioner, Jeremy M. Iandolo, Esq., of counsel
Volz & Vigliotta, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, David H. Arntsen, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District that her child (the “student”) is not a district resident. The appeal must be dismissed.
Given the disposition of this appeal, a complete recitation of the facts is unnecessary. In a written decision dated November 7, 2022, respondent concluded that the student was not a district resident entitled to attend respondent’s schools. This appeal ensued. Petitioner’s request for interim relief was granted on November 22, 2022.
Petitioner seeks a determination that the student is a resident of the district entitled to attend its schools tuition-free.
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 that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 532, Decision No. 15,940; Appeal of M.M., 48 id. 527, Decision No. 15,937; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 ). Where the Commissioner can no longer award a petitioner meaningful relief on his or her claims, no live controversy remains and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of R.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,394; Appeal of N.C., 40 id. 445, Decision No. 14,522).
Following the initiation of this appeal, respondent informed my Office of Counsel that the student graduated from its district. As a result, there is no current dispute over the student's residency, and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of A.L. and E.A.-L., 61 Ed Dept, Decision No. 18.041; Appeal of S.P., 56 id., Decision No. 16,951; Appeal of L.B. and T.B., 55 id., Decision No. 16,832). To the extent that there is a remaining dispute over tuition, I do not find that this presents a live controversy (Appeal of A.L. and E.A.-L., 61 Ed Dept, Decision No. 18041; Appeal of X.W., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,760; Appeal of S.T.V., 57 id., Decision No. 17,371; Appeal of M.S. and M.R.F., 57 id., Decision No. 17,347).
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE