Cases

OPINION & ORDER VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge This case is brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., by parents, J.M. and N.M., and their child, L.M., seeking reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) for private school tuition. As this Court has expressed previously, the Court’s heart goes o

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 & ORDER . PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiffs''JS arid LS (the “Parents”), individually and on behalf of their minor son, DS, 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. and Article 89 of the New York State Education

OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Lippman. We conclude that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to comply with the requirements of the Correction Law and thus acted arbitrarily in denying petitioner’s application for security clearance. I. As a general matter, it is unlawful in this state for any public or private employer to deny any license or employm

BACKGROUND SACK, Circuit Judge: Both of these appeals, which we heard in tandem, concern the proper interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”),1 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. They each involve unique facts which must therefore be set out in considerable detail in order to address the legal issues they raise.2 The c

538 F.3d 106 (2008) Alba SOMOZA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 07-0778-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: December 13, 2007. Decided: August 14, 2008. *108 David J. Adams, (Kimberly M. Mack Rosenberg, Salam M. Katsch, on the

OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiffs J.W. and L.W. (collectively, “the Parents”) filed this action against the New York City Department of Education (“the Department”) 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., seeking

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

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Eric Volat appeals an April 17, 2015 memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Volat’s discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 12203, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his New Yo

556 F.Supp.2d 202 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; City of New York; Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, Personnel Director, New York City Department of Personnel (in her official capacity); New York City Department of Personnel, Defendants, and John Brennan; James G. Ahearn; Dennis Mortenson and Scott Spring, Interyenors, and Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'A

RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judge. Although this Court has long navigated “the complex realm of [employment] testing and test validation,” Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York, 630 F.2d 79, 82 (2d Cir.1980), once again, we find ourselves in uncharted territory. This case asks us to decide whether the general knowledge test component of New York State’s public school teacher certification program is racia

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs allege that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) uses unlawful stops, searches, and arrests to enforce the prohibition against trespassing in New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) buildings.1 This Court has granted in part and denied in part the parties

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 14-1688 ________________ SYED FARHAJ HASSAN; THE COUNCIL OF IMAMS IN NEW JERSEY; MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATION OF THE U.S. AND CANADA, INC.; ALL BODY SHOP INSIDE & OUTSIDE; UNITY BEEF SAUSAGE COMPANY; MUSLIM FOUNDATION INC.; MOIZ MOHAMMED; JANE DOE; SOOFIA TAHIR; ZA

487 F.Supp.2d 220 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; City of New York; Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, Personnel Director, New York City Department of Personnel (in her official capacity); New York City Department of Personnel, Defendants, and John Brennan; James G. Ahearn; Dennis Mortenson and Scott Spring, Intervenors, and Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'A

OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge: Plaintiffs N.K. and L.W., individually and on behalf of their minor child J.K., bring this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Article 89 of the

448 F.Supp.2d 397 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; City of New York; Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, Personnel Director, New York City Department of Personnel (in her official capacity); New York City Department of Personnel, Defendants, and John Brennan; James G. Ahearn; Dennis Mortenson and Scott Spring, Intervenors, and Janet. Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Andrew Clement, Kr

ORDER GO, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs are a class of disabled children who bring this action against defendants the New York City Board of Education, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), and Joel Klein, the Chancellor of the New York City School District, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Individ

DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Plaintiff in this action invites the Court to change her grade to pass from fail. Federal Courts must reject the temptation to invade the essence of the Academy. For the reasons stated below, this Court dismisses this Complaint. Plaintiff Victoria Marino brings this action

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