Petitioner's request for interim relief pending a determination on the merits was denied on June 12, 1995. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court denied petitioner's writ of certiorari. Petitioner alleges that respondents have no authority to attach a lien on his property and that respondents' actions constitute unconstitutional retaliation against him. Petitioner also contends that respondents are using school district attorneys for personal gain and that respondent board's insurer has absorbed all the costs of litigation. Petitioner seeks an order staying the enforcement of the judgment against him.
Respondents contend that their actions have been proper and that petitioner's appeal is frivolous.
Respondents deny a conspiracy against petitioner and claim that they have simply sought to collect the appellate costs awarded against petitioner by the Second Circuit. Petitioner relies on Education Law ' 1709 for his claims that respondents have no authority to collect a judgment against him. Section 1709 specifically enumerates the powers and duties of a union free school district. Generally, a board of education possesses those powers reasonably necessary to manage and control the educational affairs of the district. In this case, petitioner commenced legal proceedings against respondent, both before the Commissioner of Education and the courts.