![]() ![]() Petitioner nevertheless continued to allege that she resided at the in-district address and submitted mail addressed to her at the in-district address to support her claim. with her ‘dad,’” which, according to the assistant superintendent, referred to the out-of-district address. According to the assistant superintendent’s affidavit, during this meeting, petitioner claimed to reside with her aunt at the in-district address but admitted that the students were physically present at the out-of-district address “very often.” In addition, when questioned about the students’ current whereabouts, petitioner admitted that the students “were ‘at home already’. ![]() In response to the assistant superintendent’s letter, petitioner requested a residency meeting, which took place on January 3, 2020. The letter invited petitioner to submit any evidence of the students’ residency by December 18, 2019. This letter indicated that respondent’s determination was based on the fact that surveillance and documentation confirmed that petitioner and the students did not reside at the in-district address. The district’s investigation additionally revealed that petitioner’s vehicle registration and insurance were registered to the out-of-district address in her name.īy letter dated December 11, 2019, respondent’s assistant superintendent for finance and facilities (“assistant superintendent”) informed petitioner of her intent to exclude the students from respondent’s district as non-residents effective December 20, 2019. In addition to this surveillance, respondent conducted a search of public records, which revealed that petitioner co-owned the out-of-district address with her father. Upon arriving at the in-district address, the students exited the vehicle and either boarded the school bus at the in-district address (on four occasions) or entered the in-district address (on two occasions). On each day of surveillance, the investigator observed a vehicle depart the out-of-district address and arrive at the in-district address. Specifically, respondent conducted surveillance on November 26 and 27, 2019, and December 3, 4, 10, and 11, 2019. Specifically, the caller reported that “two children were routinely being dropped off by a car in front of” the in-district address, at which time they “board a istrict school bus on weekday school mornings.” The district thereafter initiated an investigation to determine whether the students resided within respondent’s district.īetween Novemand December 11, 2019, an investigator conducted surveillance on six weekdays at both the in-district address and an address in Wyandanch, New York, which is located outside of the geographical boundaries of respondent’s district (the “out-of-district address”). In or about October 2019, respondent received a report from an anonymous telephone caller alleging that the students did not reside in the district. ![]() Prior to the events described in this appeal, the students were enrolled in respondent’s schools based upon petitioner’s representation that she and the students resided at an address in respondent’s district (the “in-district address”). and daughter, P.A., (the “students”) are not district residents. Tahoe., Interim Commissioner.-Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Half Hollow Hills Central School District (“respondent”) that her niece, K.A.P.-C. from action of the Board of Education of the Half Hollow Hills Central School District regarding residency.įrazer & Feldman, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Christie R. Appeal of E.S., on behalf of her children P.A. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |