Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District et al
| Connie Avaras |
| Clarkstown Central School District, Wendy Branderburg, Jane Doe, Arnold Fucci and Meredith Grant |
| 1:2015cv02042 |
| March 12, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Rockland |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
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
144
OPINION AND ORDER re: 127 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint in Intervention and to Reject Charging Lien. filed by Connie Avaras. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint-in-Intervention is DENIED. The Co urt finds that Intervenor's Section 475 charging lien is validly asserted over Plaintiff's settlement funds from the instant action. Since Intervenor has already been more than adequately compensated for her services, the Court fixes Intervenor's lien at the value of zero dollars. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 11/8/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER granting 114 Motion to Intervene. Proposed intervenor Gina M. DeCrescenzo, P.C.s ("DeCrescenzo P.C.") motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. § 24, to intervene in this action is granted (largely) without opposition. The motion to intervene is granted, however, the Court makes no determination on the merits of movant's claim. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 114. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 2/4/21) (yv)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER REGARDING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (i) The clerks of the Court accept the Third Amended Complaint, as timely filed by Plaintiff on January 21, 2020 (ECF No. 93); and, (ii) The clerks of the Court modify the docket t o match the Plaintiffs and Defendants listed by the Plaintiff on the caption of the Third Amended Complaint; and Defendants' time to file a response to the Third Amended Complaint is extended until March 5 2020. (As further set forth in this Order.) Board of Education answer due 3/5/2020; Clarkstown Central School District answer due 3/5/2020; New York State Department of Education answer due 3/5/2020. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 2/5/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER re: 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants Clarkstown Central School District and the Board of Education of the Clarkstown Central School District's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. filed by Clarkstown Central School District, Board of Education, 38 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint. filed by New York State Department of Education. For the foregoing reasons, th e District Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Department's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All of Plaintiff's non-IDEA claims are dismissed. As for Plaintiff's IDEA claims, the C ourt finds that 1) Plaintiff's pre-2012-2013 claims are time- barred, 2) A.A. was denied a free and appropriate public education for the 2012- 2013 and 2013-2014 school years, and 3) Hawk Meadow was an appropriate alternative for A.A. in light of his unique educational needs. Because there is an insufficient record for this Court's review on the final prong of the Burlington/Carter test, and all of Plaintiff's other claims have been dismissed, this matter is REMANDED to the IHO to consider the narrow issue of whether the equities favor reimbursing Plaintiff for the costs associated with A.A.'s private placement at Hawk Meadow for the school years (2012-2013 and 2013-2014) when he was denied a free and appropriate p ublic education by the District. See E.M v. N Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 463 (2d Cir. 2014) (often it is more useful for a district court to "remand the matter to state administrative officers for a [] reexamination in light of&q uot; the court's decision). Should either party wish to appeal any eventual determination by the IHO, or SRO, on the equities of reimbursement, they should file a new complaint on that limited issue indicating the case is related to this prior litigation. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 38 & 62 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 7/17/2017) (rj)
|
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.
