Appeal of VERONICA CULCAY, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Ossining Union Free School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,587

(July 9, 2025)

Keane & Beane, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Stephanie M. Roebuck, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Ossining Union Free School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not a district resident.  The appeal must be dismissed on procedural grounds.

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).

Petitioner’s affidavit of service indicates that she served the district’s registrar on May 29, 2025.  The registrar, however, denies receiving a copy of the petition.  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise respond to this contention.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of V.S., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,574; Appeal of T.A., 63 id., Decision No. 18,367; Appeal of Lang, 62 id., Decision No. 18,164).

The appeal must also be dismissed for lack of verification.  Section 275.5 of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that all pleadings in an appeal to the Commissioner be verified.  A petition “shall be verified by the oath of at least one of the petitioners” (8 NYCRR 275.5; Appeal of Booker, 40 Ed Dep Rep 447, Decision No. 14,523).  When a petition is not properly verified, the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of Nappi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,300; Appeal of D.P., 46 id. 516, Decision No. 15,580).  Petitioner neither signed nor notarized the affidavit of verification submitted with the petition.  “Because petitioner has not sworn under oath to the truth of the allegations in the petition, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of verification” (Appeal of O.J., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,900).

For the benefit of the parties, I note that petitioner submitted no evidence in support of her residency claim.  By contrast, respondent submitted ample evidence, including surveillance, to support its determination.  Therefore, the appeal would also have been dismissed on the merits (Appeal of Jennings, 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,424).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE