Appeal of T.W.-S., on behalf of her children, from action of the Board of Education of the Sweet Home Central School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,603

(July 21, 2025)

Lippes Mathias LLP, attorneys for respondent, Nathaniel J. Kuzma, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges the determination of the Board of Education of the Sweet Home Central School District (“respondent”) that her two children (the “students”) are not eligible to attend the district’s schools tuition-free or to receive transportation pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 USC §§ 11431, et seq., “McKinney-Vento”).  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). 

Following submission of the pleadings, respondent submitted a supplemental affidavit from its Director of Curriculum & Instruction asserting that the appeal is now moot because petitioner withdrew the student from the district.  In this supplemental affidavit, which I have accepted into the record (see 8 NYCRR § 276.5 [b]), the homeless liaison asserts that the student is now enrolled as a student in the Kenmore-Tonawanda Union Free School District.  Thus, although the student was entitled to attend respondent’s schools during the pendency of this appeal under the automatic stay provisions of McKinney-Vento (42 USC § 11432 [g] [3] [E] [i]) and State law (Education Law § 3209 [5] [c]), petitioner chose instead to enroll the student in another school district.  Therefore, I find that petitioner's request to have the student attend respondent’s schools as a homeless student has been rendered moot (Appeal of L.P., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,080; Appeal of M.G. and W.G., 60 id., Decision No. 17,878; Appeal of K.P., 58 id., Decision No. 17,661).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE