Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 15,675

Appeal of A.P., on behalf of her grandson C.P., from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs regarding residency.

 

Decision No. 15,675

(October 10, 2007)

 

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Beth A. Bourassa, Esq., of counsel

 

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs (“respondent”) that her grandson, C.P., is not a district resident.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner, a district resident, asserts that she has custody of C.P. and that he resides with her.  By letter dated August 16, 2007, the district’s central registrar denied petitioner’s request to admit C.P. to the district’s schools as a district resident.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on September 11, 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]).

Although petitioner’s affidavit of service indicates that the petition was served on respondent by personal delivery to the district’s superintendent, the superintendent states in her affidavit that she did not personally receive it.  Respondent submits the affidavit of a district clerical assistant indicating that she was the individual who was personally served with the petition while working in the district’s central registration office.  The clerical assistant has not been designated by respondent to accept service on its behalf.  Because there is no indication that the appeal was otherwise delivered to or received by respondent in accordance with §275.8, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of G.B., 46 Ed Dept Rep 181, 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