Appeal of D.M., on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of Locust Valley Central School District regarding student discipline.

Decision No. 18,460

(July 30, 2024)

Ingerman Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Steven A. Goodstadt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Locust Valley Central School District (“respondent”) to impose discipline upon his child (the “student”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

Initially, the bulk of 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). 

Following the commencement of this appeal, respondent expunged any reference to a long-term suspension from the student’s record.  Thus, no further meaningful relief can be granted with respect to the long-term suspension (Appeal of J.Q., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,739; Appeal of S.K., 57 id., Decision No. 17,339).

Petitioner has not met his burden of proving that the short-term suspension should be expunged from the student’s record.  In cases of student discipline, the sanction imposed must be proportionate to the severity of the offense involved (Appeal of D.B., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,383).  The test to be applied in reviewing a penalty is whether it is so shocking to the conscience as to warrant substitution of the Commissioner’s judgment for that of the board of education (Appeal of K.P., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,055; Appeal of C.N. and C.N., 60 id., Decision No. 17,954).   

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 admits that the student was “guilty of entering a class unassigned to him.”  While petitioner denies that the student participated in an altercation after entering the classroom, he presents no argument as to why a short-term suspension was excessive or unwarranted.  Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden of proving that the short-term suspension was shocking to the conscience.

I have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE