Respondent raises a number of procedural defenses, contending that petitioner has failed to name the proper parties to this appeal, that I lack jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's constitutional claims, and that the petition fails to state a cause of action against respondent. As to the merits, respondent contends the Board of Registration properly investigated petitioner's residency and determined that petitioner is not a district resident. Preliminarily, I note that respondent objects to petitioner's reply on the ground that petitioner has added new facts and allegations that are not responsive to the affirmative defenses raised by respondent. Accordingly, I will not consider those portions of petitioner's reply that contain new information or materials which are not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in the answer. Petitioner challenges the decision of the Board of Registration to remove his name from the voter registration rolls, as well as the manner in which the board investigated his residency.
Petitioner seeks, among other things, reinstatement to the district's voter registration rolls.
Pursuant to Education Law 2014, the Board of Registration is responsible for preparing the district's register and removing from it the name of any person who is not qualified as a school district elector. The Board of Registration is a necessary party to this proceeding because it is the body whose actions petitioner challenges and that has authority to restore petitioner's name to the register. In addition, the petition must be dismissed because it is devoid of allegations of wrongdoing by respondent and therefore fails to state a claim against it. Even if the appeal were not dismissed on procedural grounds, I would dismiss it on the merits. Dual home ownership does not confer upon the property owner the right to designate residency for the purpose of participating in school district elections.