Appeals of C.R.-C., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,581

(July 7, 2025)

Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, attorneys for respondent, David H. Strong, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not homeless within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act (42 USC §§ 11431 et seq., “McKinney-Vento”) and New York Education Law § 3209 (1) (a).  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 [1980]).  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).

Respondent’s homeless liaison indicates in an affidavit that, on or about March 3, 2025, Family Court, Putnam County awarded sole custody of the student to his biological father, who is not a party to this appeal.  The homeless liaison further states that, since that time, the student moved from his prior residence with petitioner to his father’s residence, which is located outside of the district.  Any determination as to whether the student remains homeless would center on the adequacy and permanency of the father’s address.[1]  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as moot (Appeal of A.O., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,448; Appeal of S.B., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,179).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE