R.N. and A.N. v. The Board of Education for the Iroquois Central School District
Filing
54
DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 34 Report and Recommendations.; denying 20 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment consistent with this Decision and Order. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/20/19. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________
R.N. and A.N. Individually and
on behalf of R.N.,
14-CV-211
Plaintiffs,
V.
DECISION
AND ORDER
The Board of Education for the
Iroquois Central School District,
Defendant,
__________________________________
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
upon
the
Report
and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34) issued by Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth
Schroeder, Jr. (“the R&R”) on November 15, 2016. On May 14, 2019,
the
Honorable
Lawrence
J.
Vilardo
assigned
the
case
to
the
undersigned. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court adopts the
R&R in full.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs
commenced
this
action
on
March
27,
2017
(Dkt. No. 1) and Defendant filed and served its Answer on May 12,
2014 (Dkt. No. 10).
On May 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Schroeder
was designated to hear and report upon the dispositive motions for
consideration by the District Judge (Dkt. No. 13).
Thereafter, on
December 22, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
(Dkt.
No.
20)
and
on
cross-motion
for
November
2016,
15,
April
summary
the
6,
2015,
judgment
Magistrate
Plaintiffs
(Dkt.
Judge
No.
issued
filed
their
29-30).
On
his
R&R
and
recommended denial of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and
the
grant
of
Plaintiff’s
cross-motion
for
summary
judgement
(Dkt. No. 34). On December 9, 2016, Defendants filed objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and Order (Dkt. No. 39).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, R.N. and A.N. are the parents of their son R.N.
who seeks reimbursement for tuition paid to GOW School for their
learning disabled son, R.N. for the period February 1, 2013, to
June 30, 2013.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant School District
(“District”) failed to provide R.N. with a free, appropriate public
education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities
Act (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et. seq. “To ensure that qualifying
children receive a FAPE (a free appropriate public education) a
school district must create an individualized education program
(”IEP”) for each child.
R.E. v. N.Y. City Dept’t of Educ., 694
F.3d 167, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing
20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)).
The
IEP is the centerpiece of the IDEA system which is “a written
statement
that
performance,
sets
out
establishes
the
child’s
annual and
present
short-term
educational
objectives
for
improvements in that performance, and describes the specially
designged instruction and services that will enable the child to
meet those objectives.”
D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y.C.
465 F.3d 503, 507-08 (2d Cir. 2006).
Bd. Of Educ.,
Here, the parents, R.N. and
A.N., believe that the local CSE failed to provide their disabled
child a FAPE and they chose to place their child in a private
school at their own financial risk and seek tuition reimbursement.
The Court’s consideration of the record in its entirety finds that
2
the Magistrate Judge’s reversal of the SRO was correct.
The parents who seek tuition reimbursement for removing the
disabled child from Defendant school to private school filed a due
process complaint to initiate a hearing before an impartial hearing
officer (“IHO”) appointed by the local Board of Education.
Educ. Law § 4404(1).
N.Y.
At the hearing “the school district has the
burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the proposed IEP.”
Grim, 346 F.3d at 379.
“An IHO’s decision may, in turn, be
appealed to a State Review Officer (“SRO”) who is an officer of the
State’s Department of Education.”
N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(2).
Any
“party aggrieved” by the SRO’s final administrative decision may
seek review of it by bringing a civil action in state or federal
court.
20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
Essentially, although the
action commenced by Plaintiffs “. . . may call the procedure ‘a
motion for summary judgment,’ the procedure is in substance an
appeal from an administrative determination, not a summary judgment
[motion].”
M.H., 685 F.3d at 226. A reviewing federal court “must
engage in an independent review of the administrative record and
make a determination based on a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’”
Judicial review “is by no means an invitation to the courts to
substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those
of the school authorities which they review.”
Gagliardo, 489 F.3d
at 113-114.
After reviewing the administrative record, and the evidence
considered by the Magistrate Judge together with the objections and
memoranda submitted by the parties, I agree with and accept the
3
Magistrate Judge’s recommended conclusion that Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment (Dkt. No.20) be denied and Plaintiffs’ crossmotion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 29) be granted.
Here, the
parents of a learning disabled child cooperated in good faith for
years with the CSE and sent a 10-day notice of their intent to
unilaterally place their child, R.N., at the GOW School, and they
were not “going through the motions” of the CSE referral and
evaluation to get tuition reimbursement.
(Dkt. No. 30-1, p. 33-
34). I find that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the
equitable factors supported reimbursement of the tuition paid by
R.N.’s parents to the GOW School for the period February 2013
through June 2013.
CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the record and the R&R, and for the
reasons stated therein, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
It is ORDERED that
Defendant shall reimburse Plaintiffs for tuition they paid to the
GOW School for the period February 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
__________________________
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:
Rochester, New York
May 20, 2019
4
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.
Why Is My Information Online?