Appeal of L.F., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,640

(October 8, 2025)

Ingerman Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Edward H. McCarthy, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges the determination of the Board of Education of the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District (“respondent”) that her 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.

Prior to the events giving rise to this appeal, the student attended respondent’s district as a homeless student.  In January 2024, petitioner signed a one-year lease for an apartment located outside of the district’s boundaries (the “out-of-district address”). 

By letter dated July 11, 2024, respondent informed petitioner of its determination that the student was no longer homeless because her residence was fixed, regular, and adequate.  This letter indicated that the student would be excluded from respondent’s schools for the 2024-25 school year.[1]  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner asserts that the student is homeless because she participates in a housing program that limits her monthly rent payments.

Respondent argues that the student is not homeless because there is no evidence that petitioner’s living arrangements are temporary or inadequate.

By letter dated March 21, 2025, the Office of Counsel requested additional evidence concerning petitioner’s residency.  Petitioner provided a new, one-year lease for the out-of-district address ending in January 2026.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3209 (1) (a), a “homeless child” is:  (1) a child “who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence,” such as a child who is “sharing the housing of other persons due to a loss of housing, economic hardship or a similar reason”; a child who is “living in motels, hotels, trailer parks or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations”; a child who has been abandoned in a hospital; or an unaccompanied youth; or (2) a child who has a “primary nighttime location” that is either “a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations” or “a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.”[2]  Both Education Law § 3209 and section 100.2 (x) of the Commissioner’s regulations conform to the definition of “homeless children and youths” in McKinney-Vento (42 USC § 11434a [2]). 

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving that the student is homeless.  Initially, petitioner does not assert that the out-of-district address is inadequate (Appeal of V.M., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,428; Appeal of S.S., 63 id., Decision No. 18,300; Appeal of S.C., 59 id., Decision No. 17,710).  Moreover, “[p]etitioner[’s] one-year lease does not render the out-of-district residence temporary or transitional” (Appeal of G.D. and K.D., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,180; see also Appeal of J.C., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,897).

Additionally, there is no evidence that petitioner needs to vacate her current residence after her current lease expires.  In this respect, petitioner has resided at the out-of-district address for over a year-and-a-half.  Thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the student is homeless.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE