Appeal of J.S. and J.C., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Binghamton, Michael Holly, in his capacity as principal, and Brooklyn Hoyt, in her capacity as school nurse, regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,399

(April 15, 2024)

Weaver, Mancuso, Brightman, PLLC, attorneys for respondents, Anna M. Patton, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Binghamton (“respondent board”) that their child (the “student”) is not entitled to a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2164.  They name the high school principal and school nurse in connection therewith (the “individual respondents”).  The appeal must be dismissed for improper service.[1]

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]; Appeal of B.H., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,246; Appeal of Peterson, 48 id. 530, Decision No. 15,939).

Petitioners’ affidavits of service indicate that they served the individual respondents on February 1, 2024.[2]  The individual respondents deny this allegation, asserting that they received the petition from district employees who are not authorized to accept service on their behalf.  Petitioners did not submit a reply or otherwise respond to respondents’ claim of improper service.  Thus, on this record, I cannot conclude that petitioners served a copy of the petition on any of the named respondents in accordance with section 275.8 (a) of the Commissioner’s regulations (see Appeal of Barrientos, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,450; Appeal of Barrientos, 56 id., Decision No. 16,944).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE