Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
M.H. and E.K. individually and collectively on behalf of P.H., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant. M.S. individually, M.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S., L.S., individually, L.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-

M.H. and E.K. individually and collectively on behalf of P.H., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant. M.S. individually, M.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S., L.S., individually, L.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by Leonard E Sienko Jr
In a consolidated action by parents of disabled children who challenged the procedural and substantive adequacy of the Individualized Education Plans that the defendant, New York City Department of Education, had developed for the plaintiffs' children pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., the District Court's grants of summary judgments are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly agreed with the determinations of the Impartial Hearing Officer who initially considered the matter in the State's administrative scheme, and properly rejected the subsequent determinations of the State Review Officer; and 2) although the magistrate judge, who recommended granting the Department's motion for summary judgment, overstated the extent to which federal courts must defer to the findings of state administrative officers, the Department's motion was properly granted.
In a consolidated action by parents of disabled children who challenged the procedural and substantive adequacy of the Individualized Education Plans that the defendant, New York City Department of Education, had developed for the plaintiffs' children pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., the District Court's grants of summary judgments are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly agreed with the determinations of the Impartial Hearing Officer who initially considered the matter in the State's administrative scheme, and properly rejected the subsequent determinations of the State Review Officer; and 2) although the magistrate judge, who recommended granting the Department's motion for summary judgment, overstated the extent to which federal courts must defer to the findings of state administrative officers, the Department's motion was properly granted.

More info:

Published by: Leonard E Sienko Jr on Jun 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
10-2181-cv, 10-2418-cvM.H. & E.K. o/b/o P.H.; M.S. & L.S. o/b/o of D.S. v. NYC Dep’t of Education
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS1FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT2August Term, 20103(Argued: April 25, 2011Decided: June 29, 2012)4-------------------------------------5M.H. AND E.K. individually and collectively on behalf of P.H.,6Plaintiffs-Appellees,7- v -Docket No. 10-21818New York City Department of Education,9Defendant-Appellant.10-------------------------------------11M.S. individually, M.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S.,12L.S., individually, L.S., collectively and on behalf of D.S.,13Plaintiffs-Appellants,14- v -Docket No. 10-24181516New York City Department of Education,17Defendant-Appellee.18-------------------------------------19Before:SACK, LIVINGSTON, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.20Appeals from opinions and orders in two different cases21decided in the United States District Court for the Southern22District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge, and Lewis23A. Kaplan, Judge, respectively), granting, in M.H., the24
Case: 10-2418 Document: 78-1 Page: 1 06/29/2012 650923 94
1 of 97
 
2plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and, in M.S., the New1York City Department of Education's motion for summary judgment.2The plaintiffs in both cases are the parents of disabled children3who challenged the procedural and substantive adequacy of the4Individualized Education Plans that the defendant, New York City5Department of Education, had developed for the plaintiffs'6children pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education7Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The plaintiffs also sought8reimbursement of funds spent on private-school tuition for their9children.10In M.H., we conclude that the district court properly11agreed with the determinations of the Impartial Hearing Officer12who initially considered the matter in the State's administrative13scheme, and properly rejected the subsequent determinations of14the State Review Officer. In M.S., although we conclude that the15magistrate judge -- who recommended granting the Department's16motion for summary judgment -- overstated the extent to which17federal courts must defer to the findings of state administrative18officers, we conclude that the Department's motion was properly19granted.20Affirmed.21JULIE STEINER (G. Christopher Harriss,22Stephen J. McGrath, Andrew Rauchberg, of23counsel, on the brief), on behalf of24Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel25of the City of New York, New York, New26
Case: 10-2418 Document: 78-1 Page: 2 06/29/2012 650923 94
2 of 97
 
1
 
Glossary of Acronyms
: This opinion, dealing as it does withthe IDEA and practices thereunder, is replete with acronyms. Inaddition to their definition in the text, a separate glossary ofacronyms is therefore set forth in the Appendix to this opinion.Cf. Nat'l Assoc. of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. U.S. Dep't ofEnergy, Nos. 11-1066, 11-1068, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 1957942, at*6, n.1, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11044, at *3, n.1 (D.C. Cir. June1, 2012) (Silberman, J.) (referring to court's Handbook ofPractice and Internal Procedures' statement that "'parties arestrongly urged to limit the use of acronyms' and 'should avoidusing acronyms that are not widely known.'" "Brief-writing, noless than 'written English, is full of bad habits which spread byimitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take thenecessary trouble.' George Orwell, 'Politics and the EnglishLanguage,' 13 Horizon 76 (1946). Here, both parties abandonedany attempt to write in plain English, instead abbreviating everyconceivable agency and statute involved, familiar ornot . . . .").3York, for Defendant-Appellant New York1City Department of Education.23JESSE COLE CUTLER (Samantha Bernstein,4on the brief), Skyer and Associates,5L.L.P., New York, New York, for6Plaintiffs-Appellees M.H. and E.K on7behalf of P.H.; for Plaintiffs-8Appellants M.S. and L.S. individually9and collectively on behalf of D.S..10SACK, Circuit Judge:11
BACKGROUND
12Both of these appeals, which we heard in tandem,13concern the proper interpretation of the Individuals with14Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"),
1
20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.15They each involve unique facts which must therefore be set out in16considerable detail in order to address the legal issues they17
Case: 10-2418 Document: 78-1 Page: 3 06/29/2012 650923 94
3 of 97

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->