K.M. et al v. New York City Department of Education
| K.M. and S.N. |
| New York City Department of Education |
| 1:2013cv07719 |
| October 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendations, 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by S.N., K.M., 18 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by New York City Department of Education. Plaintiffs bring this action under the I ndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and applicable New York law seeking review of a decision by a State Review Officer ("SRO") denying the plaintiff's tuition r eimbursement for the private school to which they sent their son, L.N., during the 2011-2012 school year. The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Maas, in an extensive Report and Recommendation, recommends that I d eny the plaintiffs' motion and grant the defendant's motion. The plaintiffs object to this recommendation. I have considered the objections and find them to be entirely without merit. Contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, Judg e Maas specifically examined the cumulative effect of the procedural inadequacies and determined that they did not render L.N.'s IEP legally inadequate. This Court agrees. Substantively, plaintiff's claim that the assignment of a 1 :1 behavior management paraprofessional did not provide the type and intensity of support required by L.N. The SRO determined that the IEP appropriately recommended that L.N. be placed in a 6:1:1 class with a 1:1 paraprofessional and that this re commendation was reasonably calculated to allow L.N. to receive educational benefits. The "adequacy of 1:1 paraprofessional support as opposed to 1:1 teacher support is precisely the kind of educational policy judgment to which [courts] owe the state deference if it is supported by sufficient evidence." This Court agrees with Judge Maas that this portion of the SRO's decision was well-reasoned and that it is owed deference as the final decision of the state. I therefore fin d that the IEP was substantively adequate to provide L.N. with a FAPE. Finally, plaintiffs' argument that the SRO's decision should be disregarded because it incorrectly stated that the dispute "ha[d] been rendered moot" i s baseless. 15 That statement-while admittedly inaccurate-does not invalidate the 40-plus pages of reasoned findings and conclusions by the SRO. While I am sympathetic to the laudable concern of the parents for their child and understand that t his action has been brought out of that concern, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the action is granted and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk shall close the case. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/30/2015) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
