Catlin by Catlin v. Sobol

• Decision Date: 29 September 1988
• Citation: 141 Misc.2d 169,532 N.Y.S.2d 1006
• Parties: , 49 Ed. Law Rep. 718 Dunbar Elliot CATLIN, an infant, by his parents and natural guardians, Daniel CATLIN and Dundeen Catlin, and Daniel Catlin and Dundeen Catlin, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Thomas SOBOL, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, and John F. Holdorf, as Superintendent of Schools of the Edmeston Central School District and the Board of Education of the Edmeston Central School District, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 1006

532 N.Y.S.2d 1006

141 Misc.2d 169, 49 Ed. Law Rep. 718

Dunbar Elliot CATLIN, an infant, by his parents and natural guardians, Daniel CATLIN and Dundeen Catlin, and Daniel Catlin and Dundeen Catlin, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Thomas SOBOL, as Commissioner of Education of the State of

New York, and John F. Holdorf, as Superintendent of Schools

of the Edmeston Central School District and the Board of

Education of the Edmeston Central School District, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Motion Term,

Albany County.

Sept. 29, 1988.

Anderson, Banks, Moore, Curran & Hollis, Mount Kisco, for plaintiff.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany, for defendant Sobol.

Hogan & Sarzynski, Binghamton, for defendants Holdorf and Bd. of Educ. of the Edmeston Cent. School Dist.

PAUL E. CHEESEMAN, Justice.

This case is one of first impression in the courts of the State. It is also a case of great importance as it relates to the plaintiff, Dunbar Elliot ("Dell") Catlin, a fifteen year old, mentally retarded infant.

We are asked to decide whether the Commissioner of Education, (hereinafter Commissioner) correctly applied New York's residency statute (Education Law Section 3202(4)(b)) in denying Dell resident status in Edmeston, New York, and thereby denying him tuition-free education.

Dell Catlin is a mentally retarded infant, who was placed in a "family home at board" almost immediately after birth by his natural parents, Daniel and Dundeen Catlin. Pursuant to his parents' agreement with Samuel and Elizabeth Condes, Dell lives in a family home run by the Condes family in Edmeston, New York.

Part of this agreement is that the Catlins provide support payments on a regular basis to the Condes. The Catlins have delegated the responsibility for the daily care of Dell to the Condes although they remain involved in some decisions that are made for Dell.

It is uncontroverted that Dell's social, civic, religious and family life is in Edmeston. In 1978, Dell entered the Edmeston Central School system. At that time the Catlins resided in the Bedford Central School District located in Mt. Kisco, New York. The Bedford Central School District determined on their own that they were "legally responsible" for the tuition at Edmeston and paid the same through the 1985 school year.

In 1985, the Catlins moved from Bedford, New York to Nantucket, Massachusetts. The move prompted the Bedford Central School District to discontinue payments on Dell's behalf. Edmeston immediately notified the Catlins that unless arrangements were made for the payment of Dell's tuition, Edmeston would refuse to permit Dell's further attendance at school. Edmeston's position throughout this litigation has been that it is not required to provide Dell with free public schooling because he is not a resident of Edmeston.

The Bedford Central School District also contacted the appropriate school district in Massachusetts to have it assume responsibility for Dell's tuition. Massachusetts declined. The Catlins then appealed Edmeston's decision to the Commissioner who held that Dell was not a resident of Edmeston, finding that there was a presumption that a child resided with his parents. The Commissioner held that presumption was rebuttable but that Dell had failed to rebut this presumption.

The Commissioner in interpreting Education Law Section 3202(4)(b) ruled that Dell's actual and only residence is not Edmeston and that Dell may continue attendance at Edmeston only upon the terms and conditions set by the Board of Education, which included the payment of tuition. In so ruling, the Commissioner stated:

"In this instance, it is not disputed that petitioner continues to be financially responsible for his son's support and maintenance. Although the operator of the family home at board has responsibility for the daily care of the child, that responsibility has been delegated by petitioner, who is free to terminate the delegation at any time. It must also be noted that the record indicates that petitioner and his wife have taken an active role in meeting with the committee of the handicapped of the Bedford school district to plan their son's educational program. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which I could conclude that the residence of the child should not be deemed to be that of his parents."

The Catlins instituted an action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional as applied. The Court (Hon. Howard Munson, J.) granted the Catlins partial summary judgment by ruling that the residency requirements of the Education Law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 103 S.Ct. 1838, 75 L.Ed.2d 879 [1983] ) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in an appeal of the District Court decision, remanded the case to District Court with instructions to retain jurisdiction pending an interpretation of Education Law Section 3202(4)(b) by New York State courts. (Catlin v. Ambach, 820 F.2d 588 [2d Cir.1987] ).

In February 1988 the Catlins commenced an action for declaratory judgment seeking this court's interpretation of Section 3202(4)(b) of the Education Law as it pertains to Dell.

On February 29, 1988, the Edmeston Central School District brought an action against the Catlins in Otsego County Supreme Court for tuition for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 school years. Edmeston thereafter brought a motion for summary judgment. The Catlins cross-moved to consolidate that action with this and to change the venue of the Otsego County action to Albany County. The parties agreed to consolidate and change venue to Albany County.

The Catlins have moved for summary judgment...