Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 15,057

Appeal of JO ANN V. HARMON from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York regarding termination.

 

Decision No. 15,057

 

(June 1, 2004)

 

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Alecia Walters, Esq., of counsel 

 

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York ("respondent") to terminate her on September 1, 2003.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner worked in respondent"s Office of Adult and Continuing Education.  She alleges intimidation and harassment by some of respondent"s employees.  Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent"s Chancellor and an Article XI complaint with the Office of Youth Development and School Community Services on July 7, 2003.  Having received no response to her complaints, petitioner commenced this appeal.  Petitioner seeks a formal inquiry and investigation surrounding the alleged intimidation and harassment and a stay of her termination.

The appeal must be dismissed because of improper service.  Pursuant to "275.8(a) of the Commissioner"s regulations, if a school district is named as a party respondent, "service upon such school district shall be made personally by delivering a copy of the petition to the district clerk, to any trustee or any member of the board of education of such school district, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person in the office of the superintendent who has been designated by the board of education to accept service."

The record reflects that the petition was served upon the mail clerk at the Department of Education at 52 Chambers Street. The mail clerk does not hold one of the positions identified in the regulation and has not been designated by respondent to accept service.  The New York City Law Department has been designated by respondent to accept service on its behalf, and by letter dated September 10, 2003, respondent"s attorney objected to the service at Chambers Street.  Thereafter, at the request of the Law Department, my Office of Counsel advised petitioner by letter dated September 18, 2003 to re-serve the petition on the Law Department at 100 Church Street by October 3, 2003.  Petitioner failed to do so.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of Lilker, 39 Ed Dept Rep 614, Decision No. 14,328; Appeal of Ameri, 37 id. 652, Decision No. 13,949.)  

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE