Appeal of TONIA HOYT, on behalf of her children, from action of the Board of Education of the Mayfield Central School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,637

(September 29, 2025)

D’Imperio Law, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Dominic D’Imperio, Esq., of counsel

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

Prior to the events described herein, petitioner and her children attended respondent’s district based on the representation that that they resided at an address located within the district (the “in-district address”). 

In late 2024, respondent commenced an investigation into petitioner’s residency.  Substantial evidence, including surveillance, vehicle registration, and an interview with a neighbor, suggested that petitioner resided at a residence outside of the district owned by the students’ father (the “out-of-district address”).

In April 2025, the out-of-district address caught fire and was rendered uninhabitable.  The students’ father informed the local police and fire departments that he, petitioner, and the students resided therein. 

By letter dated June 11, 2025, respondent’s superintendent informed petitioner of his determination that the students were not district residents.  The superintendent indicated that the students could complete the 2024-2025 school year but would be excluded thereafter.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioners’ request for interim relief was denied on July 23, 2025.

Petitioner contends that she and the students reside at the in-district address.  She asserts that, prior to the fire, she drove the students to the out-of-district address “every single morning” at 6:00 or 6:15 a.m., after which time she drove them to school or they boarded the bus.  She seeks a determination that the students are district residents.

Respondent contends that its determination is supported by the evidence in the record.

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 (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 proving that the students reside within respondent’s district.  As evidence, petitioner submits a copy of her driver’s license, mail addressed to her, and medical records, each of which reflects the in-district address.  She also submits numerous photographs of the students.[1]

This documentary evidence is unpersuasive when weighed against respondent’s surveillance evidence (see Appeal of Mauro, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,494; Appeal of Brown, 54 id., Decision No. 16,644; Appeal of Gay, 54 id., Decision No. 16,636).  This evidence consistently depicted petitioner and the students at the out-of-district address on school mornings.  Petitioner’s explanation that she drove the students to the out-of-district address prior to the period of surveillance is rebutted by the father’s statements to the local police and fire departments as well as the information provided by the neighbor.  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise seek to rebut these assertions.  As such, respondent’s determination cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE