Petitioners requested a hearing which was held on March 15, 1993. The hearing officer concluded that petitioners were not residents of the district, finding that they had used a business address in the district as their residence when actually they resided in a single family home in St. Albans, Queens, outside of the district. The hearing officer's determination was based on a 17-day surveillance conducted by respondent's director of transportation, home visits to the alleged address within the district and documentary evidence submitted by both parties. Petitioners appealed the decision and respondent board upheld the determination. This appeal ensued.
Petitioners allege that respondent's decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
They also allege that respondent's decision was improper because the record was not fully reviewed. Respondent contends that it acted reasonably and was neither arbitrary nor capricious in its determination that petitioners are not residents of the district. The hearing conducted by respondent included direct witness testimony and documentary evidence, including a sworn surveillance report that showed petitioners leaving the Queens address with their children every day and proceeding to drop them at respondent's schools. Petitioners' initial response to that report was that they stayed in St. Albans to care for elderly and ill relatives. Later, petitioners denied the accuracy of the surveillance.