Appeal of E.M., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the East Aurora Union Free School District regarding student discipline.

Decision No. 18,504

(October 7, 2024)

Tully Rinckey, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Sivan Zak and Nicholas Marricco, Esqs., of counsel

Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Jeffrey J. Weiss and Kristin L. Warner, Esqs., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the East Aurora Union Free School District (“respondent”) to impose discipline upon her child (the “student”).  The appeal must be dismissed for untimeliness and improper service.

An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16; Appeal of Saxena, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,239; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  Except in unusual circumstances, ignorance of the appeal process does not afford a sufficient basis to excuse a delay in commencing an appeal (Appeal of D.B., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,807; Appeal of Stieffenhofer, 48 id. 231, Decision No. 15,846).

Respondent suspended the student on January 9, 2024.  Petitioner did not commence this appeal until May 14, 2024, more than four months later.  Petitioner’s explanation for the delay is that respondent did not inform her of her right to appeal to the Commissioner.  However, respondent “was not obligated to inform petitioner[] of [her] appeal rights” under these circumstances (Appeal of S.P. and N.P., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,029).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

Furthermore, 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).

Here, petitioner served the petition upon an employee of the school district, a greeter for the school the student attends.  Respondent asserts that the greeter was not authorized to accept service on respondent’s behalf.  Petitioner did not submit a reply or other evidence that she served an individual so authorized.  Accordingly, the appeal must also be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of T.A., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,367; Appeal of Lang, 62 id., Decision No. 18,164).

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE