Appeal of F.L., on behalf of her children, from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New Rochelle regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,632

(August 12, 2025)

Ingerman Smith, L.L.P., attorneys for respondent, Camille E. Curry, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New Rochelle (“respondent”) that her two children (the “students”) are not district residents.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Prior to the events described herein, the students resided within respondent’s district and attended its schools.  On January 6, 2025, petitioner met with a school counselor regarding one of her children.  During this meeting, petitioner indicated that she and the students had moved to a home in Connecticut that she had purchased.  Petitioner indicated that she had not decided if the students would attend schools in Connecticut or reside with their grandparents in New Rochelle to attend respondent’s schools.[1]

By letter dated March 3, 2025, respondent informed petitioner that it had received information suggesting that she no longer resided within the district.  This letter invited petitioner to submit additional proof of her residency or request a conference to discuss the factual basis for the district’s determination.  There is no evidence that petitioner responded to this letter.  In a subsequent letter dated March 10, 2025, respondent indicated that the students would be excluded on March 19, 2025.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was granted on April 18, 2025.

Petitioner contends that she resides with the students’ grandparents at their home within the district.  She seeks a finding that the students are district residents.

Respondent contends that petitioner and the students reside outside of its district in Connecticut.

Education Law § 3202 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person over five and under twenty-one years of age who has not received a high school diploma is entitled to attend the public schools maintained in the district in which such person resides without the payment of tuition.”  The purpose of this provision is to limit a school district’s obligation to provide tuition-free education to students whose parents or legal guardians reside within the district, as a child’s residence is presumed to be that of his or her parents or legal guardians (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of Polynice, 48 id. 490, Decision No. 15,927; see Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, 559-560 [1991]).  “Residence” for purposes of Education Law § 3202 is established by physical presence as an inhabitant within the district and intent to remain (Longwood Cent. School Dist. v Springs Union Free School Dist., 1 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320).

A residency determination will not be set aside unless it is arbitrary and capricious (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).  In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which the petitioner seeks relief (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).

Petitioner has not met her burden of proof.  She submits signed, notarized statements from the grandparents, who indicate that petitioner
“and the three kids ha[ve] moved back into [their] home” since December 2024.[2]  Petitioner further indicates that she purchased the Connecticut home as an investment property.  In its answer, respondent submits two affidavits from school employees indicating that petitioner told them she intended to, and did, move to Connecticut.  The record also contains a residency report indicating that petitioner informed a school counselor that “she [would] commute to and from Connecticut daily to bring the children to [respondent’s] schools and falsely use her mother[’s] … address ….”  Respondent additionally surveilled the grandparents’ address on a school day morning and did not observe the students.[3]  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise respond to these assertions.  Weighing the probative value of these submissions, I find respondent’s evidence more persuasive.  Accordingly, I cannot conclude that respondent’s determination was arbitrary or capricious and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of T.A., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,367; Appeal of Lang, 62 id., Decision No. 18,164).

To the extent they are not addressed herein, petitioner’s remaining arguments are without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE