Cases

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.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiffs B.K. and Y.K. (the “Parents”) bring this action against the New York City Department of Education (“Defendant” or “Department”) on behalf of their son, G.K. (collectively with Parents, “Plaintiffs”), who is diagnosed as having an Autism Spectrum Disorder and presents with significant delays in cognitive, adaptive, and interpersonal skil

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

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.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge On April 15, 2015, plaintiff J.B. (the “Parent”) commenced this action on behalf of her child, K.B., pursuant to the individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). (Compl. (Doc. No 1.)) The Parent alleges that the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) failed to provide a “free

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge: Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy (“R&R”), filed on August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 29). The R&R recommends that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment be DENIED. (R&R at 29).

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Before the court .is an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U:S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., by Plaintiff-Appellant L.O., on behalf of herself and her son, *102K.T., now a twenty-year-old autistic child,1 against Defendant-Appellee the New York City Department of Educatio

OPINION Sweet, District Judge. Plaintiff E.H, individually (the “Plaintiff’ or the “Parent”) and on behalf of their son M.K. (the “Student”), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment granting tuition reimbursement for M.K.’s unilateral placement for the 2012-2013 school year and reversal of the decision of the State Review Officer (“SRO”). Defendant Department of Educat

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER PAUL G. GARDEPHE, District Judge: Plaintiff L.O. brings this action—on behalf of herself and her son, K.T.—against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) for relief pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to overturn a State Review Officer’s decision affirming an Impar

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 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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TOWNES, District Judge: Plaintiff Anna-Marie Thomas (“Plaintiff’), a teacher employed by defendant New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”), brings this action against the DOE; its former Chancellor, Joel I. Klein; and four individuals who, at certain times relevant to this action, worked with Plaintiff at the Brooklyn High School of the Arts (collectively, the “BHSA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TOWNES, District Judge: In November 2009, Plaintiff Josefina Cruz (“Plaintiff’ or “Cruz”) and four other tenured New York City public school teachers who had been removed from the classroom and subjected to disciplinary procedures by the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) commenced this action, alleging various federal constitutional violations. Thereafter, the

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.

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant K.L., by her parents, brought this suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., alleging that defendant-appellee New York City Department of Education (the “District”) failed to provide K.L. with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that adequately accounted for her severe autism. On this basis, the complaint requested compensa

MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Plaintiff B.R., on behalf of her child K.O., brings this action against defendant New York City Department of Education (“the Department”) for relief pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). K.O., a 9-year-old autistic child, attends the Rebecca School, a private special education school. B.R. seeks reimbursement

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

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

801 F.Supp.2d 142 (2011) W.G. and M.G. Individually, and on Behalf of K.G., Plaintiffs, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 10 Civ. 4099 (LTS)(KNF). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 18, 2011. *144 Lawrence D. Weinberg, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporat

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