Appeal of J.G., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Onondaga Central School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,555

(April 3, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Rachel N. Roth, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a determination of the Board of Education of the Onondaga Central School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not a district resident entitled to attend its schools without payment of tuition.  The appeal must be dismissed.

In September 2024, respondent received information suggesting that the student, who was currently enrolled in the district, did not reside therein.  Respondent investigated the student’s residency throughout September and October 2024.  In connection therewith, an investigator surveilled the alleged in-district address, another address where petitioner owns property, and a Syracuse address where respondent believed that the student resided (the “out-of-district address”) on 16 occasions.  The investigator observed petitioner’s vehicle parked at the out-of-district address on 10 school mornings.  The student was never observed at, or departing from, the in-district address.  Respondent also learned that petitioner represented to her employer that she resided at the out-of-district address. 

By letter dated October 16, 2024, respondent advised petitioner of its determination that the student was not a district resident.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on November 8, 2024. 

Petitioner argues that she and the student reside at the in-district address and the student is entitled to attend respondent’s schools.

Respondent argues that its determination was supported by the evidence compiled during its investigation, particularly its surveillance evidence.

Education Law § 3202 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person over five and under twenty-one years of age who has not received a high school diploma is entitled to attend the public schools maintained in the district in which such person resides without the payment of tuition.”  The purpose of this provision is to limit a school district’s obligation to provide tuition-free education to students whose parents or legal guardians reside within the district, as a child’s residence is presumed to be that of his or her parents or legal guardians (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of Polynice, 48 id. 490, Decision No. 15,927; see Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, 559-560 [1991]).  “Residence” for purposes of Education Law § 3202 is established by physical presence as an inhabitant within the district and intent to remain (Longwood Cent. School Dist. v Springs Union Free School Dist., 1 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320).

A residency determination will not be set aside unless it is arbitrary and capricious (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).  In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which the petitioner seeks relief (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).

Petitioner asserts that she and the student reside at the in-district address.  As proof, she submits a copy of her driver’s license, an account statement, a bill, and tax documentation associating her name with the in-district address.  She also submits a notarized statement from the student’s grandfather asserting that petitioner and student live with him at the in-district address.  Petitioner admits that she and the student sometimes spend the night at the other property she owns as well as the out-of-district address. 

Petitioner’s evidence and explanations for the student’s absence from the in-district address are unpersuasive in light of respondent’s surveillance evidence (Appeal of R.F., 64 Ed Dep Rep, Decision No. 18,476; Appeal of Silva, 63 id., Decision No. 18,411; Appeal of S.H., 63 id., Decision No. 18,336; Appeal of Students with Disabilities, 59 id., Decision No. 17,687).  As indicated above, respondent’s investigator frequently observed petitioner’s vehicle at the out-of-district address and did not see petitioner or the student at, or departing from, the in-district address.  Moreover, petitioner offers no explanation as to why she identified her residence, for employment purposes, as the out-of-district address.  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE