Decision No. 18,505
Appeal of B.C. and R.C., on behalf of their son, from action of the Board of Education of the Prattsburgh Central School District[1] regarding student bullying.
Decision No. 18,505
(October 7, 2024)
Ferrara Fiorenza PC, attorneys for respondent, Cameron B. Daniels, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal from action of the Board of Education of the Prattsburgh Central School District (“respondent”), alleging that respondent violated the Dignity for All Students Act (“Dignity Act”) with respect to their 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).
In the petition, petitioners requested the following relief: (1) a directive that respondent investigate Dignity Act complaints they allege to have submitted in March 2023; (2) a determination thereon; and (3) assignment of the student to a different first grade class.
Petitioners’ request concerning their Dignity Act complaints was addressed by an interim order in this appeal, which required: (1) respondent to develop a safety plan, in consultation with petitioners, to minimize and respond to encounters between the student and the classmate; and (2) petitioners to submit a Dignity Act complaint by September 12, 2023, to which respondent, upon receipt, would investigate and resolve. The record reflects that respondent developed a safety plan for the student and concluded, following submission of a Dignity Act complaint by petitioners, that the student was not bullied or harassed. Thus, respondent completed the requested investigation into petitioners’ allegations and this claim for relief is moot.[2]
Petitioners’ request for an order assigning the student and classmate to different first grade classes is also moot. The record reflects that the student and classmate attended first grade together during the 2023-2024 school year, which has now ended.[3] Accordingly, there is no relief concerning the student’s class assignment that may be awarded at this juncture.[4]
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] While petitioner named other officers or employees in the caption of this appeal, “I find no purpose in featuring these individuals in the caption of the appeal or considering them respondents herein” (Appeal of Rosselli-Dabool, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,262).
[2] Moreover, even if I agreed with petitioners that the student had been bullied or harassed, the relief would likely take the form of a safety plan, which respondent has already developed.
[3] There is no evidence in the record that the student and the classmate experienced conflict during the 2023-2024 school year.
[4] I addressed this issue in the interim order, indicating that if respondent “determine[d] that bullying or harassment occurred, a remedy may include assigning the student and the classmate ... to different classes.” Moreover, petitioners appear to have abandoned this request, stating, in their reply, that the student began first grade with the classmate and “that a disruption to his classroom at th[at] point may be more harmful than helpful.”