The appeal must be dismissed. By letter dated January 7, the superintendent informed petitioner that a hearing would be held pursuant to Education Law ' 3214 to determine whether further disciplinary action was warranted. Because petitioner's son was not of compulsory school age, home instruction was not provided. Petitioner initiated this appeal by service of a verified petition on March 10, 1993.
Petitioner challenges the underlying disciplinary proceeding on several grounds.
She alleges that she did not receive adequate notice that her son had a right to counsel at the ' 3214 hearing. She also claims that witnesses were improperly permitted to remain in the hearing room throughout the hearing, and that she was not notified that her son's anecdotal records would be considered at the hearing. Petitioner also alleges that she requested an adjournment of the hearing so she could obtain evaluations of her son because she suspected him of having a disability related to his behavior. Petitioner claims that the hearing officer improperly denied her request for an adjournment. Finally, petitioner challenges the one-year suspension as excessive.