Appeal of PATRICK FERRAZ, on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Massapequa Union Free School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,652

(November 4, 2025)

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Eric Levine, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a decision of the Board of Education of the Massapequa Union Free School District (“respondent”) that his child (the “student”) is not a district residents.  The appeal must be dismissed for 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]; Appeal of B.H., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,246; Appeal of Peterson, 48 id. 530, Decision No. 15,939).

The records reflects that, on June 23, 2025, respondent received a copy of the petition by certified mail.  “[S]ervice by U.S. mail does not constitute valid service of a petition pursuant to Education Law § 310” (Appeal of S.G., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,429; Appeal of Y.F., 62 id., Decision No. 18,298; Appeal of Musso, et al., 60 id., Decision No. 17,936).  Additionally, petitioner’s affidavit of service reflects personal service on respondent’s residency officer on June 25, 2025.  Respondent indicates that, on this date, a process server delivered the petition to a receptionist who is not authorized to accept service on respondent’s behalf.  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise respond to this contention.  As such, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of M.Z., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,559; Appeal of T.A., 63 id., Decision No. 18,367; Appeal of Lang, 62 id., Decision No. 18,164).

For the benefit of the parties, the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits.  Respondent surveilled petitioner’s claimed residence within the district on three occasions but did not observe petitioner or the student.[1]  Respondent also surveilled an address outside of the district, observing petitioner and the student departing therefrom on five school mornings.  Petitioner’s explanation that he spends the vast majority of his time at the in-district residence is “possible, but not probable” (Appeal of B.W., 65 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,615).  Therefore, the appeal would also have been dismissed on the merits (Appeal of Jennings, 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,424).

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.  Petitioner may reapply for admission to respondent’s schools on the student’s behalf if his living situation changes.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE