Cases

JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: These cases require us to resolve several legal issues related to the rights of disabled children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. In these three cases, parents of autistic children (collectively and in their respective pairs, “the parents”) declined school placements of

785 F.Supp.2d 28 (2011) R.E. and M.E., individually and on behalf of J.E., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 10 Civ. 3176. United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 15, 2011. *32 Mayerson & Associates, by: Gary S. Mayerson, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Michael A. Cardo

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This suit — against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and its Chancellor, Carmen Fariña (collectively, the “City Defendants”) and the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) and its Commissioner, MaryEllen Elia1 (collectively, the “State Defendants”) (together w

OPINION OF THE COURT Mazzarelli, J.P. This appeal requires us to balance the interests of the New York City Department of Education (the Department) in maintaining order and discipline in its schools with the concerns of parents and guardians for their children’s well-being. In September 2005, the Department, as required by Education Law § 2801 (2), issued its Discipline Code or Citywide S

584 F.3d 412 (2009) T.Y., K.Y., on behalf of T.Y., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Region 4, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 08-3527-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: June 22, 2009. Decided: October 9, 2009. *415 Gary S. Mayerson (Tracy Spencer Walsh, on t

SACK, Circuit Judge: Under Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), “[essentially, in order to be considered a ‘prevailing party’ [to enable a plaintiff to take advantage of a federal fee-shifting statute] ..., a plaintiff must not only achieve some ‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the part

23-764 (XAP) N.G.B. v. New York City Department of Education United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _____________________________________ August Term 2024 (Argued: April 24, 2025 Decided: July 24, 2025) No. 23-764-cv (XAP) _____________________________________ N.G.B., individually and

19-2738-cv Agosto v. New York City Department of Education, et al. In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUGUST TERM 2019 No. 19-2738-cv JASON AGOSTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MANUEL UREÑA,

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 15, 2016, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In this taxpayer action, plaintiff Michael P. Thomas, alleges, among other things, that defendant Department of Education (DOE) and defendant Chancellor Farina engaged in fraudu

OPINION OF THE COURT Carol R. Edmead, J. Petitioner Nelline Douglas, formerly a tenured public school teacher with respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE), brings this petition pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b). The petition seeks to vacate the November 20, 2015 decision and award of Hearing Officer Leah L. Murphy, Esq. (the Hearing Officer), who found, inter alia, just cause for petitioner’s termi

OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: Plaintiff Cheryl Volpe, a special education teacher in the New York public school system, brings the instant action against her employer, New York City Department of Education, and her supervisor, Principal Olivia Francis-Webber. Volpe alleges that defendants subjected her to impermissible retaliation and violated her rights to equal protection of t

OPINION OF THE COURT Peter H. Moulton, J. Petitioner Jiana Boone brings this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reversal of a determination by respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE) denying her the security clearance necessary to obtain employment with DOE as a school bus attendant. Petitioner alleges that DOE violated article 23-A of the Correction Law. Petitioner asserts that DOE

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge: On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff Heidi Husser commenced this action against the New York-City Department of Education. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) By Second Amended Complaint filed September 6, 2013, Plaintiff named John Shea and John O’Connell as additional defendants. (Second Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 16.) Plaintiff brings claims of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER McMahon, District Judge. Plaintiffs GB and DB (the “Parents”), individually and on behalf of their son, AB, bring this action against Defendant New York City Department, of Education (“DOE”), pursuant to then Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

MEMORANDUM, ORDER - AND JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of contents I.Introduction.,.... QQ <M II.Procedural Background.;. •.:..2E4 III.Factual Background.,....235 A. Plaintiffs Teaching History..'.235 B. Claimed Adverse Actions.....•.235 C. Claimed Injury and Current Situation.'..•.23

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Catharine E. Davis (“Davis”), proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, /.), granting the motion of Defendant New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) for summary judgment, and denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Davis’s suit sought damages based on a clai

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiffs FB and EB (the “Parents”), individually and on behalf of their minor son, LB, bring this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§

MEMORANDUM & OPINION PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Merlene Bacchus, a former school aide in the New York City public school system, brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), District Council 37 and its affiliate, the Board of Education Employees Local 372 (collectively “Union Defendants” or “Union”), and Renee Pepper (“Pepper”), assistant prin

407 F.3d 65 A.R., on behalf of her minor child, R.V., M.S., on behalf of her minor child, I.O., M.L., on behalf of her minor child, J.L., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant.S.W. and M.M., on behalf of N.W., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, (District 2), Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-9471. No. 02-9472

OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff J.E. filed this action against the New York City Department of Education (“the Department” or “DOE”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, N.Y. Educ. Law § 4401 et seq. She challenges two administrative decisions of Stat