Appeal of C.L., on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Brushton-Moira Central School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,623

(August 11, 2025)

Ferrara Fiorenza PC, attorneys for respondent, Lindsay A.G. Plantholt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges the determination of the Board of Education of the Brushton-Moira Central School District (“respondent”) that his child (the “student”) is not homeless within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 USC §§ 11431, et seq., “McKinney-Vento”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner first enrolled the student in respondent’s district in September 2024, indicating that he, his spouse, and the student resided within the district (the “in-district address”).  In December 2024, petitioner moved to a location outside of the district (the “out-of-district address”) while his spouse remained at the in-district address.  The student split his time between these addresses.  Respondent maintained the student’s enrollment and reimbursed petitioner when he transported the student between the out-of-district address and the school he attended.  This appeal ensued. 

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).

Shortly after the filing of this appeal, petitioner and the student moved back to the in-district address.  Thus, any determination as to whether the student remains homeless would center on the adequacy and permanency of the in-district address—and the appeal must be dismissed as moot (Appeal of A.O., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,448; Appeal of S.B., 62 id., Decision No. 18,179).[1]

I have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE