Petitioners also allege that respondent Carozza should have conducted a proceeding under Education Law '' 1507 and 1508 to determine the boundary. Respondent Hudson Falls board contends that the appeal is untimely and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This respondent also contends that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof and argues that the petition was not verified and contains no notice of appearance. Respondent Carozza contends that the appeal is untimely and the petition contains no notice of appearance. Before reaching the merits, I will first address the procedural issues.
Petitioners offer no excuse for the delay.
The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed as untimely. I also note that the petition is procedurally defective, as respondents claim, because it is not verified and fails to contain a notice of appearance. The appeal must also be dismissed on the merits. The record shows that the parcel in dispute was, prior to 1974, included on respondent Hudson Falls board's tax rolls. There is no evidence that the transfer to petitioner Fort Edward board's rolls was anything other than inadvertent.