Cases

819 F.Supp.2d 90 (2011) P.K. and T.K. on behalf of S.K., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (REGION 4), Defendant. No. 09 CV 1472(SJ)(SMG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 15, 2011. *95 Mayerson & Associates, by: Gary S. Mayerson, Tracey Spencer Walsh, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

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

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

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: I. Introduction. .410 II.Facts and Procedural History. H r — I A. L.K.’s Background and Education H r — 1 B. June 2012 IHO Decision. ,CC T — I C. March 2014 SRO Decision. lO T — t III.Law. 415 A. Standard of Review.415 B.

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

779 F.Supp.2d 289 (2011) T.K. and S.K., Individually and on Behalf of L.K., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 10-CV-00752. United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 25, 2011. *292 Gary S. Mayerson, Brianne Nicole Dotts, Mayerson and Associates, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

LOHIER, Circuit Judge: The New York City Department of Education (the “Department”) appeals from a judgment awarding Plaintiffs T.K. and S.K. reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA” or the “Act”) for one year of private school education for their daughter, L.K., who was the subject of severe bullying. On appeal we consider whether the Department violated the IDEA by denying Plaintiffs’ reque

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs KR. and S.R. (“Parents”), individually and on behalf of their minor child Matthew R., bring this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”).1

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: S.W. (“Dad”) and E.W. (“Mom”) enrolled M.W., their autistic child, in a private school after concluding that the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE”) individualized education program failed to provide him with a free and appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. *135<

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 Marsha Falchenberg appeals from various discovery orders and the amended opinion filed on July 10, 2008, *13642 F.Supp.2d 156, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.), (1) granting the motion of the State of New York, the New York State Education Department (“SED”), and National Evaluation Sys

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Marsha Falchenberg appeals from various discovery orders and the amended opinion filed on July 10, 2008, *13642 F.Supp.2d 156, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.), (1) granting the motion of the State of New York, the New York State Education Department (“SED”), and National Evaluation Sys

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-appellants N.B. and C.B., the parents of H.B., a child diagnosed with autism (the “Parents”), appeal a September 30, 2016 judgment of the district court entered pursuant to a September 29, 2016 opinion and order that granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee the New York City Department of Education (the “Department”), denying reimbursement for H.B.’s private school tuition un

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