Decision No. 18,643
Appeal of O.L., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Granville Central School District regarding the Dignity for All Students Act.
Decision No. 18,643
(October 28, 2025)
Girvin & Ferlazzo, PC, attorneys for respondent, Erin R. Morris, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the Granville Central School District (“respondent”) regarding a Dignity for All Students Act (“Dignity Act”) complaint involving her child (the “student”). 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).
The crux of petitioner’s appeal is that respondent did not complete an investigation into three Dignity Act complaints that she filed. However, soon after commencing this appeal, respondent completed its investigation and informed petitioner of its conclusion. As a result thereof, respondent implemented remedies including changing the student’s section; implementing a no-contact agreement; and notifying all staff to monitor any interactions between the student and a classmate.[1] Therefore, petitioner has received all of the relief she requested and the appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Appeal of S.P.M. II, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,297).[2]
In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions, including respondent’s procedural defenses.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] Although petitioner alleges that “there was … an additional incident … regarding the same offender on [a] school bus” in May 2025, this occurred after respondent issued its determination. Moreover, petitioner acknowledges that respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator “respond[ed]” to her complaint “by email[] and by phone.”
[2] To the extent petitioner requests that respondent be held “accountable” for its “negligence,” I lack jurisdiction to grant such relief (Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, 31 Ed Dept Rep 212, Decision No. 12,623)