Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 15,654

Appeal of J.L., on behalf of his daughter M.L., from action of the Board of Education of the Ardsley Union Free School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 15,654

(August 31, 2007)

Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman LLP, attorneys for respondent, Lawrence J. Tenenbaum and Michael D. Raniere, Esqs., of counsel

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Ardsley Union Free School District ("respondent") that his daughter, M.L., is not a district resident.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner, a district resident, asserts that he and M.L.’s mother, who resides outside the district, share custody of M.L..  By letter dated May 22, 2007, the district’s business manager scheduled a meeting with petitioner and M.L.’s mother to discuss their residency.  The meeting was held on June 4, 2007.  By letter dated July 9, 2007, the business manager denied the request to admit M.L. to school tuition-free as a district resident.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on August 14, 2007.

The appeal must be dismissed due to improper service.  Section 275.8(a) of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that the petition be personally served upon each named respondent.  If a school district is named as a respondent, service upon the 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, 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 (8 NYCRR §275.8[a]).

Petitioner’s affidavit of service indicates that the petition was served on respondent by personal delivery to Debi Trias, who, according to the business manager’s affidavit, is his secretary.  She is not a member of the board of education, not the district clerk and has not been designated by the board of education to accept service on its behalf.  Because there is no indication that the appeal was otherwise delivered to or received by respondent, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of G.B., 46 Ed Dept Rep ___, Decision No. 15,476; Appeal of Harmon, 43 id. 478, Decision No. 15,057; Appeal of Lilker, 39 id. 614, Decision No. 14,328).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE