Appeal of RICHARD TINE, on behalf of his grandson WILLIAM EDMONDSON, from action of the Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 15,600

(June 28, 2007)

Douglas E. Libby, Esq., attorney for respondent

AHEARN, Acting Commissioner.-Petitioner challenges the determination of the Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District (“respondent”) that his grandson, William Edmondson, is not a district resident.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner, a resident of respondent’s district, is William’s maternal grandfather.  On September 7, 2006, petitioner submitted a registration form requesting that William be admitted to seventh grade in the district.  Petitioner explained that William was not living with his mother (petitioner’s daughter) because she had relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada.

By letter dated September 19, 2006, respondent’s administrative assistant to the superintendent notified petitioner that William was not a district resident because of “Parental Residence Out-of-District & Custody Concerns.”  Petitioner appealed this determination and an administrative review was held on September 22, 2006.  By letter dated October 12, 2006, the administrative review officer notified petitioner of her determination that William was not a district resident.

On or about November 14, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for custody of William in the Nassau County Family Court.  Petitioner commenced this appeal on November 21, 2006.  On November 28, 2006, the Nassau County Family Court issued a temporary order of custody, granting residential custody of William to petitioner, and joint legal custody to petitioner and William’s mother.  By letter dated November 29, 2006, respondent’s attorney informed my Office of Counsel that it had conditionally admitted William based on the temporary custody order, pending a hearing on the custody matter. 

On April 2, 2007, the Nassau County Family Court issued an Order of Custody and Visitation, granting residential custody of William to petitioner and joint legal custody to petitioner and William’s mother.  By letter dated May 30, 2007, respondent’s attorney informed my Office of Counsel that respondent’s superintendent authorized William’s continued attendance based on the final order and considered the matter moot.

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 which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest (Appeal of C.A., Sr., 45 Ed Dept Rep 388, Decision No. 15,360; Appeal of the New York Charter Schools Assn., Inc., et al., 45 id. 376, Decision No. 15,355; Appeal of the Bd. of Trustees of the N. Merrick Public Library, et al., 45 id. 363, Decision No. 15,350).  Based on the final custody order, William has been readmitted to respondent’s schools.  Therefore, the appeal is moot.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE