Appeal of H.H. and Y.P., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Utica regarding student discipline.

Decision No. 18,532

(December 10, 2024)

Ferrara Fiorenza, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Thomas F. Barrett, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the decision of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Utica (“respondent”) to impose discipline on their child.  The appeal must be dismissed for improper service and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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 record reflects that the petition was served on a security officer who was not designated by respondent to accept service.  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for improper service (Appeal of M.B. and R.B., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,514; Appeal of M.C., 61 id., Decision No. 18,087).

Even if the appeal were not dismissed for improper service, it would be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  Education Law § 3214 (3) (c) (1) provides that an appeal to the board of education lies from a superintendent’s decision, following a hearing, to suspend a student for a period in excess of five days.  Accordingly, a long-term suspension must be appealed to the board of education prior to review by the Commissioner of Education in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 (Appeal of M.P. and T.P., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,819; Appeal of J.H. and R.H., 57 id., Decision No. 17,317; Appeal of R.A., 48 id. 426, Decision No. 15,903).  There is no evidence in the record that petitioners appealed a long-term suspension imposed by the superintendent to respondent before commencing the instant appeal.  Therefore, the appeal is also subject to dismissal on that basis (Appeal of R.R., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,395; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 58 id., Decision No. 17,445). 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE