Thereafter, respondent Prattsburgh accepted S.V.'s assertion that he resided in the district and began to pay tuition for D.T. for the 1995-96 school year. In January 1996, respondent Prattsburgh's superintendent of school notified S.V. in writing that he questioned whether S.V. was a resident of Prattsburgh and, for that reason, no further tuition payments would be made. During the summer of 1996, S.V. again relocated. Respondent Bath also obtained a questionnaire completed by S.V. while at Steuben County jail. Therefore, the relief sought is limited to the years set forth above.
Respondents raise several procedural objections.
Respondents Corning and Prattsburgh assert that the appeal is untimely as against them. Respondent Bath claims petitioner lacks standing to appeal its determination that S.V. is not a resident of its school district. All respondents deny responsibility for tuition reimbursement to petitioner for the months and years in question. Respondents Corning and Prattsburgh are correct in asserting that, as to them, the appeal is untimely. Section 275.16 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education require that an appeal be brought within thirty days of the action or determination complained of.