Cases

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 AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Linda Scott, individually and on behalf of her child, C.S., brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Plaintiff seeks review of the January 5, 2012 decision (the “SRO Op.”) of New York Stat

*297ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction.297 II. Facts.'.298 III. Law.298 A. Statutory Framework.298 B. Judicial Review.299 IV. Application of Law to Facts . to ÍD A. Review of the Administra

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: [[Image here]] *63[[Image here]] I. Introduction Minority students and their parents at Boys & Girls High School (“B & G”) bring this class action contending

716 F.Supp.2d 336 (2010) B.W. o/b/o K.S., a minor; T.S. o/b/o J.W., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 09 Civ. 6686(HBP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 3, 2010. *338 Michael Dougherty Hampden, Legal Services for Children, Inc., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Dav

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Analisa Torres, District Judge. S.Y. and R.Y. (together, the “Parents”), individually and on behalf of their child, R.Y., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants, the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor (together, the “DOE”), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2012).

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

The plaintiff S.C. attended I.S. 59 in Queens for the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Elmer Hammond, a paraprofessional employed at the school, was S.C.’s sixth-grade music teacher. Hammond also worked with at-risk students, such as S.C., and he began regularly eating lunch with S.C. in the chorus room, sometimes paying for S.C’s lunch. In January 2007, during S.C.’s eighth grade year, an argument with his mother caused him to run a

The plaintiff S.C. attended I.S. 59 in Queens for the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Elmer Hammond, a paraprofessional employed at the school, was S.C.’s sixth-grade music teacher. Hammond also worked with at-risk students, such as S.C., and he began regularly eating lunch with S.C. in the chorus room, sometimes paying for S.C’s lunch. In January 2007, during S.C.’s eighth grade year, an argument with his mother caused him to run a

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered July 15, 2015, which granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant the New York City Department of Education pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and for summary judgment dismissing the compla

MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: Plaintiffs S.B, and D.B. bring this action on behalf of their child S.B. against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) for relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). They seek reversal of the final administrative decision rendered by a New York State Review Officer (“SRO”) overturning the decision of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER COGAN, District Judge This case is before me on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted as to plaintiffs discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and granted in part and denied in part as to plaintiffs failure to accommodate claim under the Americans with Disa

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated January 20, 2015, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaint

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 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

*546 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of sex and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated July 16, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dism

OPINION OF THE COURT Barbara Jaffe, J. By notice of petition and verified petition, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR 7511 for an order and judgment vacating an opinion and award issued by a hearing officer. (NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 1, 2.) By pre-answer cross motion, respondent moves pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR 4

OPINION OF THE COURT Lucy Billings, J. Plaintiff brings two related actions challenging defendants’ use of federal funds received pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act. (20 USC §§ 6301-6303, 6311, 6314, 6363.) In each action plaintiff alleges that the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, a New York City public school administered by defendants, was required to use these federal funds only to s

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 DECISION & ORDER COGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff brought this action under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged discrimination and retaliation. The parties have stipulated to the dismissal of all but the § 1983 claims arising from alleged retaliation against plaintiff for speech protected by the First Amend