Appeal of C.C., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Lansing Central School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,660

(December 15, 2025)

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

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Lansing Central 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”) and, therefore, is not entitled to attend the district’s schools and receive transportation.  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).

Prior to this appeal, public information suggested that the in-district property where petitioner claimed to reside was uninhabited.  As such, respondent concluded that petitioner and the student were neither district residents nor homeless.  Thereafter, petitioner submitted the instant petition, which contains photographs suggesting that she and the student reside within respondent’s district.  Based on this information, respondent enrolled the student as a homeless student.  Accordingly, there is no further meaningful relief that can be granted and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of V.H., 65 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,577; Appeal of He, 57 id., Decision No. 17,299; Appeal of R.S. and C.C., 45 id. 1, Decision No. 15,239).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE