Appeal of A.O., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Levittown Union Free School District regarding residency and homelessness.

Decision No. 18,448

(July 18, 2024)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Mara N. Harvey, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a determination by the Board of Education of the Levittown Union Free School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not homeless within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act (42 USC §§ 11431 et seq., “McKinney-Vento”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

Prior to the events giving rise to this appeal, petitioner and the student lived at a residence located within the district (the “in-district address”).  In January 2022, petitioner and the student became homeless and were temporarily housed at an out-of-district address (the “out-of-district address”).  Pursuant to McKinney-Vento, respondent deemed the student homeless and maintained the student’s enrollment in its schools.

By letter dated May 16, 2023, respondent made an initial determination that petitioner and the student were still residing at the out-of-district address and were therefore no longer homeless.   Respondent offered petitioner an opportunity to meet with the district’s homeless liaison and to submit additional information before the district made a final determination.  Petitioner did not respond to this letter or provide any additional information.

By letter dated June 5, 2023, respondent determined that the student was no longer homeless.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner contends that the student is homeless because she and the student are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing and economic hardship.  Petitioner also asserts that out-of-district residence is not “fixed, regular, and adequate” because it is an illegal basement apartment.  Petitioner requests a determination that the student is entitled to attend respondent's schools as a homeless student.

Respondent argues that petitioner and the student are not homeless as they currently live in a fixed, regular, and adequate residence.

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).

Respondent’s homeless liaison indicates in an affidavit that petitioner and the student no longer reside at the out-of-district address.  Instead, petitioner and the student now reside at a location in Hicksville, New York (the “second out-of-district address”).  Any determination as to whether the student remains homeless would center on the adequacy and permanency of the second out-of-district address.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as moot (Appeal of S.B., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,179).  Petitioner retains the right to seek a determination from respondent as to whether the second out-of-district address is fixed, regular and adequate.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE