Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King 2013 NY Slip Op 34132(U) December 30, 2013 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 2185-13 Judge: Michael H. Melkonian Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] 6 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY ht lhe Matter oflhe Application of EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. Peiitiouer, For a Judgment Putsuant co Article 78 of the Civil Practice La\v and Rules. DECISION Mill ORDER -agaie'ISt• JOI-IN B. KING, Jr., in his official capa(..'-ity as the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York; JAMES P. DeLORENZO, in his official capacicy as Assistai1t Commissioner of Education of the Staie of New York; NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY Of THE STATE OF NEW YORJ<; and the NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE, Respondents. (Supreme Coun~ Albany County, Spccial 'rcnn, Scplcmbcr 19, 20 13) Index No. 2 1$5-13 (Rll No. Ol-13-ST4549) (Aeling Justice Mich.aeJ1 Melkonian, Presiding) -1. APPEARANCES: 8 inghan1 McCu1chcn. LLP Attorneys for Petitioner (David J. Butler, Esq .. of Counsel) 2020 K Srroet NW Washins1on, DC 2006-1 S06 1 . Eric T. Schneiderman ·1011 Attorney Gene-rat of New York S1a1e Attorney for Rcspondco1 s (Laura Sprcigue. Assis1 Anomey General, ant of Cot1nscl) Dep:i.rtllleJll of l,.a\v, The Capi1ol Albnny, New York 12224 [* 2] 7 MELKONIAN. J.: Petitioner the Casi Rarnapo Central School Dislrict (hcreinafier referred to as ''petitioner" or ..the d istrict'') has con:uncnccd the instant CPLR § Article 78 proceeding challenging u Dec.ember 19, 2012 dctennination by respo1ldents John B. King, Jr., in his official capacity as the Commissioner ofEducation of the State of New York; James P. De Lorenzo, ln his official capacity as Assistant Commissioner ofEducation ofthe Statcof'Nc\v York;. the New York State Education Deparunent of!.he University ofthe State ofNC\..' York; and the Nc\v York Staie Education Ocpar1men1 Hudson Va.lley Regional Offioe ofSpccial Education Quality Assurance (hereioafter collectively referred to as " respondents'") that petitioner did not compJy \Vi th lhcrequircrnents ofLhe rndividuals \Vi th Djsnbi.lities Education Act(..lDEA ")and related fCd<:raJ and Stale education laws and regulations forthe2012-2013 school year. Thereafter, petitioner comrnenced the inslant CPLR anic)e 78 prQcc:cding to challenge respondents' de1em1ination. .Respondents move to dismiss the pe1jtion on 1he ground thal petitioner has failed to stale a cause of ac1jon. CQflgres.s enacted the IDf.A co encourage lhe ec.Juc~1 i on or children \\'ilh disabilities <D<l. of P.duc. v Rowley, 458 llS 176, 179 [ 198?)). The Sl<ltute mandates that any state receiving federal tunds must provide a free appropriate 1 >0blic education ("Fi.\PE"} to disabled children (20 USC§ l412(a)( l )(A); lld. of Educ. v Rowley, 4$8 US 176. 179 [ l982J). T he FAPE provided by the state rtluSL inclode "':;pecial cclucntion and related sccvices" tailorcd to meet the uniqu~ needs of the particuJar child (20 USC§ 1401(9)), a.nd be "reasonably caJculated to cna.ble the child 10 receive cdocatiooal benefirs" (l3d. of Educ. v Rowley, 4S8 US 176, 207 [19B2)). 2 [* 3] 8 The IDEA ptus federaJ, S(ate and local govemmcnlS and agencies in paru1ership to 400(1Xb)(c)). Undcnhe IDEA, e.nsure 1ha11he goals of lhc IDEA nre me•~. 20 USC§ 1 rt:SpOndcnts are required L exetcis~ O general supervisory responsibilities lO ensun: proper adminislraiion oflhc sta1u1e (20 USC§ 1412(1 l)(A)). In New York, 1he task of developing an Individualized Educ:ttion Plans("lEPs'")rests \Vi th localConunittees oil Special Educ.ation (''CSE.s''), \vhose members are appointed by the board o f education or 1rustees oflhc school disirict (Education Law§ 4402(1)(b)( I): Hcldmun on BehalfofT,H. ¥Sobol. 962 F.2d 148, 152 (2,,.1 Cir.19921 In developing a child's IEP, lhe CSE must consider four factors: ..( I) ). aeademic achievement and learning chamcteristics, (2) social development, (3) physical devclopmenL, and (4) m;L n.ageria1 or behavioral ncccls'"(Cwgliarrlo v ,~ILinston Cent. Sctli ~. 489 F.Jd 105, 107-08 12"' Cir.2007D. The IBP inusi "be reasonably eaJculaied 10 enable the child co receive educational benefits" (Gagliardo v Arlio&ton ~01 . S~b. QisL. 489 F.3d I05, 10712"' Cir.2007]), "likely to produce progress. not rel)fession." and afford 1 he . stude111 ' vith an oppol'tunity grea1er than mere"triviaJ advancemenr• (Cerra v Pa""lin11Ce:n1 Sch. Dist .. 427 f'.3d 186, 195 {2"' Cir.2005]). Furthermore, under an tEP. "'education {mustJ be provided in lhe ' least restrictive ::;cuing consistent with tt(.bjld's nccds»•3od the CSE 1nust "be mindful ofthe IDEA•sstrongprefcrcoce for' n1ninstrcruning,•or educating children 'vith disabililies ' to the mriximun1extent appropriate' alongside the-ir non.disabled peer$" (rvtf.I. v NYC Dept, of Educ.• 685 l'.3d 2 l 7. 224 12"' Cir.2012]) (that ions on1ittcd). ) [* 4] 9 Petitioner. a Local Educationu.l Agency ("LEA")' responsible for providing special cduc11tion services to its students. convened resohllion mcl!ljngs I01Jowi1 a parent's lg complaint regarding a CSE.reconuneo.ded placement, und designated at least one 1..,EA representative authori1..ed to 1legotiate a seulement agreement to attend the nleeting on the petitioner's behalf-usually either An JakubO\vil7., the Director ofSpecial Student Services, or Or. Elizabeth Cohen, Office ofSpecial Education Services, both members of petitioner's CSE. If petitioner's representa1ive and the parent identified a satisfactory placement in petitioner's best interest at the meeting, the partie.~ entered into u ''resolution agreement;• which was subject co approval by !he Boaro ofEd11eation ("BOE''), On August 27, 20 I 0, respondenLs-sent a report 1 petitioner, documenting the fi11dings 0 of respondent New York Stotc Education Dcpanmcnt's Hudson Valley Regional Office of SpecinJ Education Quality Assurance ("'SEQA ''), follO\Ving an April 20 lO qualil)' as~uraooe reviC\\' of pelltiooer's 2009·2010 Special cduca1 plncemenls. Jn this regard, (CSpondt.-"ntS ion revic\vcd tv.·cnry·scven TEPs1 that \vere developed by peti1ioner•s CSE for the 2009-20l0 school year foreompli:incc \Vilh the fcderl'.lland state special cduc1uion laws and regulations. The CDEA defines a LQ<."AI Educational Agtncy ("'l~EA ") as a public bcJard of education or other public authotity legally constiluted \Vithin a state foe control or direajon of u school dis1rict. ·01e District is an LEA \vilhin 1 meaning of the IDEA~ 20 USC§ he 1 • l40 1(15)(A). ~An IEP is a \\•ritten statement, collaboratively developed by the pateots, educators, and specialists. thal "sets oot lhechild's present cducalional perfomlancc. ~1abl ishesannl.Lt1I arld short·ttnn objectives tbr improvements in that performance. and desctibcsthe specially designed inslruction nnd scrvices 1hat \Yill enable 1 child to meet 1 he hosc objective$.. (llonig v Doe, 484 US 305. 3 11 [1988), superseded by scatuce, Josltua 4. y Roc~Jjo Unified Sch. QW., 559 F.3d 1036 (9"' Cir. 20091). 4 [* 5] 10 Based upon tills revie\11, rcspondenis found tba1in certain instai1ces, petjtioner had fhl.led to docun1cnt appropriate jus1itication for the private school placements of certain studcnlS in comravemion of 8 NYCRR §§§ 200.4(d)(2)( i ~ 200.5(•)(3), aod 200.6(j)(l)(iii). More specifically, respoitdents found that cenain JEPs did no1 include sufficient "prior wriuen nocjce to parents," and '"lacked the docu1nentatio11 rtquired when seeking State reimbursement." In their report, respondents ordered petitioner to take certain corrective actions to fix the docuinentation problents and informed the djstrict that respondents WCM.Jld be closely monitoring its resoh.uion of the identified noncompliance. On July 31. 20J2, respondent SEQA condu.cted an on-s ite follow-up monjtoriug rcvie'v to detennine if petitioner had cooccted the none<1-1nplianee identified by SEQA in 1he 2010 monitoring reviC\\', It foun d, among other 1hing$, lhat during the 20 12-2013 school year. pc:ti1ioner's CSE prepared lEP$ for 2. 13 1 special education stud-cnts. ParcnL of -; <'pprox.imately 30 Sllldents appealed tbeCSE"s place111ent.and petitioner 1 ·esolved 21 ofthose appeals with resolulion agreements. In 14 ofthe 2 l resolution agreements. petitioner and the parents agreed 1 placements i11priva1einstitutions, rather tha11 publicschools. On De«n1ber 0 19. 20 12, in a letter lO Dr. Joel Klein {petitioner's Superintendent), respondent Ja1nes DcLorcnzo (hereinafter referred to as ..Mr. Ocl.<lrtnzo") $Ummarizcd 1hc fi ndings fro(Tl the rcvic\'•' of pcti1ioncr·s 21 resolution a~mcn1 :;. This leucr concluded 1 pc•itioncr hat c-ogagcd in ·'pnuems :ind prac1 icc:> • • ·+ i n consisu~nl with both fedc-1111 and NC\\' York Suuc law and regulation governing 1hc education of students.'• by allO\\•ing one districi reprcsen1a1ive unihncrally to determine the placcmcn1 for studcn1s \\'ith disabilities at resolution meetings, which respe>ndents foond was inconsistent \Vith laws re.quiring the CSE s [* 6] 11 10 tecomn>end a place1uen1 in the LRE and also evidenced a "cleat intent and pauetn to n·making process rrom the CSE." lo eircun1ven1 lhe flDEAJ ruid ren1ovc the TEP decisiQ psrticular, rcspcnde-.nts identified a pattern ofpec.itiooer1 aftcrparentaJ request nod resolutiQn meetings, ofplacingstudenls in out-of·district Yiddish bilingual special education pr0g.ra.i1ts even though the students' IEPs did not indicate 3 need for bilingual services:. Respondeius directed that petitionel' n1ust ''iJnmediatelyccasc and desist its practice of routinely allO\\•ing one disrrict r~pres.en1ative 10 wlilaterally detennine the placement tor students with disabilities and override CSE LRE placement reconunendations" and to refnand all IEP di$pute$ lO the CSE. 1 icspondents further thr'C3tcncd to withhold federal special education grant 1noney from petitioner or to take other adverse action if pcritioncr failed to change the nents. \\'ay it resolved parental complaints and negotiated seule1 On January 14, 2013. pe1i1ioner responded lhis letter, staling that ii had ••conducted itself fully in accordance w ith :i.pplicable law • • • w ith respect to lhe challenged special education (csolution meetings and agreements • • •· in a nlaonerthnt is designed 10 serve the >u1ed that it engaged best interests of [petitione('s) students and taxpayers." Peiitiol\e( dis1 in a "paltcm or prac.ticc" of failing to implement CSE recom1nendt1tions. arguing that the iwenty--0ne tesolu1ion agreementsrcviev.·cd by respondents represented less than twopereent of the CSE~<ccomnlended placements for the 2012-2013 school year. Pctitio11et also disagreed \\•ith respondents thnt the BOE (or ilS authoriz.cd designee) lac.ked the 3\1thoticy 10 amend a student's LeP to resolve a parental challenge to a CSE placement nt a reso-Ju1ion n~ting. l~cgarding respondents' directive that ix:titioner •·cease and desist'' unilateral cha11ges 10 CSE·rccominendcd placements at resollltion fneetings. pelitioner argued 1 these h-a.1 6 [* 7] 12 Resolution Agreements were ..bilateral agreements bcl\\'<*n [pcti1ioncr'sJ authorized rcprc~ ntativcs (who also are members orthe CSE). and parents," and respondents hacked tlle authority to override a BOE's discrctjo11 to resolve parental c.J u11lcogcs to CSE recomme-ndations. Mr. Oe-l..orenzo responded to pe1itio11er on February 6, 2013, stating that respondents ..[\vcrc) nol dissuaded from the position it hn(d) 1 aken" after considering pcti1ioner's respcu\se. Respondents found ..no evidence that (pe1itionerJ conducted resolution cneetings, as COllSlituted under lhe federa l law," and thus "[petitioner's) process for wJilater11lly agreeing to alternate plti.eements • * • d[idl not have a bnsis in fed eral and (s)tote la\v ond regulation.'' ResPondents crilicir..cd petitioner's resolution mee1ing process on sevc-ml grounds: (I) such meetings arc to be convened only upon the liling of a duo process GOfl\pJa.int ("'DPC") by the pate1\t, ye.I petitfoner \VSS conducl in~ t11c1n (a) upon receiving only a lcucr(not amounting to a l)PC) stating th:it the p3rent disagrec<I \vitll the CSE's plaoeineot recom1 nendation aod requesting a 1neeting and (b) \Vithout coocurrently appointi1lg an If.JO•, as is supposed to occur upon the filing of a Dl'C; (2) tvlr. Jakubowitz. aod Dr. Cohen \Vt:te atteodiog the 1nee1ings as CSE represent:uives \vith&ut having participated in the development of1herelevant C EPs and thus did not qualify as •·mcmbcn; ofthe IEP1'eam \vho have spei:iJic knO\\• lcdg~ or• the Student's case as required under lhc IDEA (20 USC § 14 l 5(f)(J)(B)(i); (.3) petitioner bad condu~ed ''vclve resolution meetings in a single day, suggesting individual consideration had not been given and the meetings \VCTC pro tbrma 7 [* 8] 13 c:xerc.isci designed to change CSE placc:mcnt rcct>mmendalions to th~ pare1it•s prefertnce: hc and (4)thcro,vas no evidence that 1 prae1jee was available co all parents ofdistrict students \Vith disabilities. Regarding respondents' cease and dC$iSIdirective, it required petitioner "10 comply with federal and (s]tttle la"' and regulations 'vhen tesolving disputes \\'ilh parents, in consideration of its responsibility to ensure students rccei\'t [free app(Opriate public education) in the LRE." This proceeding ensued. ln the pelition. pct iiioner sec.ks a detcnninatioo: "a. (s}etringaside Respondcn~· factua1 findingcha1 (petitioner) possesses a 'elea.r intenLand pattern to circumvent IDEA and remove the lEP decision-111.a.k.ing process from the CSE 1 tLS unsupported by subscan6al evidence:• b. rs1eujng aside Respondents' factual fi nding that (petitioner] has a ' p attern of 1 )laci1igstudcn1s in out-of·distric•s progranl.S for the purposes or pro,dding a bilingual Yiddish program for 1he students' as .g unsupported by substantial evidence; c. [sJcui.n aside •Petitioner alleges lhat respondents' dctcnni.nntie>n was arbitrary nnd capricious and not suppor1c:d by substantial evidence. CPLR §7803{4) defines 3Subs1.antial evidence issue as "whether a dctcrmiruuion made as n result of a hearing held, und at which evidence: Wa.$ lt!kcn, pursu:in1 to Jjrec1jon of J is. on d.e en1ire recon.1 s1.1ppot1ed by subsU1nl.itiJ evidence." lti.'lsnnx:h M 1.be riw 1 administmti.ve de-termination at issue did not invol.,•e lhe fonnal receipt of cviden<:e submitted "p\lrSu~t tod1rcc1ioo b)' la\v," the '"sub.stlllltial evidi:nce.. iS$Ut is no1properly raised in this petition (~taue1ofB0Rdcd Concnst~...ofTowi1g;fR.s>necdam, 176AD2d 1117, l 138 (3..i De- l. p 1991 }). ..The mere (act that a pc1 i1ion alleges the lack of sub5tan1ial evidence supponing lhe detennfria.1ion is not dispos-i1ive." M;utcroC &oded C(lru;-[(;t¢ v Towtt Bd. of'fown or RoumJam. 176 Af>2d 1137. 1137 (3"1 Dept. 1991). lllc standrud for n:vicw of respondents' determination is lhereCorc \vhelher il wa! arbilrary and ('apcicious (f\1aner ofKi\ufmin v Ao.t~r. 42 NYld 835. 837 (1977]). 8 [* 9] 14 Respondents' facmal finding 1ba1 Rcspondcnt5 \'YCTC ·not able to ffod evidence that [the Districts's ml' dispUl\: resolution prncliccs arc:] made available to cbe p3rcnts ofall s-tudenls with tlisabilities in the District' as UrtSUpported by !ub.slrunial evidence] d. [s]etlifig aside Respondents' factual finding that [paitioncr] tw a practice of ·routinely allowing one District dt:tennin~ n:prcscntative lo tmilatcraUy I.ht placement for students with disabilities mld override lhc CSE LRE pfaccmcnt recommendationsf~l' as unsupported by substantial evidence; e. (s]ctting aside Respondents• administrative dct~rmiDl.ltion that [pclitionerJ lacks amhority ro sCUle TF.P disputes by agreeing with a student's parent to place I.he studetlt in a privnte or public placement that may n01 be the least ~crictive envlrorunent. a.s arbjtrmy. Cilprieiou.s and 3lftcied by error of fow; f. (s]ctLi:ag aside Respondents' administrnti\'e fpetiLioner] lacks authority co !>dtlc dctermimulon parcntnl (cl' th:i.c di~utcs by agreeing to a private or public place.mcnl lhal is in (pclilioner's] best nnandal interest if th~ agrttd plaoen~nl dirTl:r.S from pl.1ccrnenJ r-c:wmmcndcd by lhc CSE. as orbitrary. capriciou.-;, an<l atI~-eced by an ,;rror ofhlw: g. {s(ettiug asi& R~pond~nlii mlministrativc d~!ermination lh::it (pl.'.litioncrl 1c; not penniueJ by luw to con.sider parental p~forc:nc:~!i 9 in scuhng parental [* 10] 15 challcnirs to CSE n:coonm<nd«I placcmcnlS for their children as •rb11nry, capricious., and affcc1ed by an cJTOr of law; h. (s)cnini oside RC$poncknts' odministn1i-.e ddenninatioo llw (J><'ilioncfJ has no autllori1y to se1llc p3mllal IEP cballc:ngcs ,..,.here percnu ha~c submitted due process complaints in the form or. feller stalina the basis for pamics· objections to the IEP •nd rtqurstina • hconna. as not based on sub611nlial evidence. and as 1rbitraty, capricious. and affect~ by an trrOr of l11w: i. [a)cuing :aside Respondents• administrative dctcrmin11ioo tht1t (petitionerI hll, no authority 10 settle parcn1al IEI>challenges unless {peritioner) ~ncedes that the CSE J3iled to provide tltl approprhuc IBP ns urbiln•ry, cupricious. and n1Tee1cd by an error ofln,v;j. lnJnuJUng Respondcnls' order1hat [pe1hloner1cc:ise and dt~is.1 ils IEP djspute resolution practices as s.:1 fonh herein: k. l alnulling J tespondents' order tha.1 !petitiooer) review lJlC JJ!.Ps o(all students placed in a public or priv11c out-of-dls1r1c1 program ror che primttry p1.1.rposc of providing lhc $tuck:nls with Yiddish pro{;r'ains and s.ubmil a plan and 1imcline for dC\IC.k>ping ln-d1s.uic:I programs to Jncet the n«<h ofsuch srudcnis; I. [c)njoinin& Re>pondcms fiom onlcnng rciu1oncr 10 1hcrhs procedures ur sancttoning pctadoncron lhc basis of Rt>pC>ndcnlS' ....,._,, finduig.s of fllCI and lc:gal 10 [* 11] 16 conclu:;ions as set f0rth in its leg~ I detennioations of DcccJnbcr 19. 2012." Petilioner also seeks costs associated \vi th bringing this petition. CPLR § 7803 states that the court rcvie''' of a de1ermination or lli1 agency. such as respondent N~· York State Educatjon Department of the University of Nev.· York. consists of,vhether 1he detefllliJltllion was made· in vioJation ofla\vful procedure. was affected by an error of la''' or wa..o; .arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (CPLR § 7803[3]). An aciion is arbitrary and capricious. or an abuse ofdiscretion, when the action is taken "withou1 sound basis in reason attd *" • • \Vithout regard to the [acts" <Mauer of Cell v Boord of Education, 34 NY2d 222. 23 1 (19741). Rationality is Lhe key in detennining ,.,.hethe( an uclion is: arbi1rary and c,npricious or an abuse of discretion (Mnuec of Pell v Board of ~llC@Jioo , 34 NY2d 222, 23 1 [ 1974]). Tile Court's funcc ioo is complclcd on finding 1ba1 a rn1ionaJ b~i s supporls the resp0ndents' determination~. tlol:vard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434 [197 1]). Additi<nally, an · gency'.:; reasonable inte.rpreuition of the statutes and 1 a rcgulntions it adminislcrs is entitled to .substantial deference (lv!auer of Satvatj v E.jn1jckc, 72 NY2d 78'1, 79111988]), rearg\lmcn1denied 73 NY2d 99S [ 1989)). Where the agency's interpretation is founded on a ratjoJlal basis, that interpretation should beaffinned even if the coun might b3ve oome 10 a diffcren1 co nclusi on(~. ~e_y_Onondae,a Laodtill Sys.. 69 NY2d 355, 363 ( 1987}; Mauer o f J·P <iraup. I.LC v New York Slate Oegt. of Bconomjc ~ 9 1 A03d 1363, 1364 (4111 O~pt. 2012) ~ Awt lndu$.lrics. Inc. vTrjborough Rridsc and 1 ·runoi;I Aulborjty, 4 1 AD3d 141 , 142 [ l$ Dept. 2007]; Matter of Walker v State l lnjv. of N,'[, llJDsta1U.1cd, llnjv,J, 19 AJ)3d 10S8, IOS9 [4• Oepl. 20-05)), 11 [* 12] 17 Petitioner has ..vholly t3iled to mee• its burden ofdeoloostrating that respondents acted a rbitrarily or capriciously or contrary t() ht\V. 111 the case al bar, 1hc rcsponden1s' de·tcrmjnation was based on severa l oo·site 1 nooitoriJlg revie\\'S of pelitioner•s special education placcmcnLS. The IDEA permits parents to file a complaint chaJlenging the CS£'s placement rcco11u1 1cndation (20 USC§ 14 I 5(bX6))and indeed requires that the con1plaining parent and the school district attend a "resolution n1eeting.. Collo\ving sucb a complai111 (20 USC§ 141 S(f)(J)(B)). 1-lowever, it is not il'l'atiooal for respondents 10 require 1 they be hru held properly. A due process compl•int (20 USC§ 14 IS(b)(6)(7)), not a m«e lcuer. mu.st be fited. In addition 10 including a representative of the distrie1 w ith decision·ntaking authority, the participants rnust include the parents and rnemberS C>f 1he CSE \vho have information ond knowledge ofthe coseand e ltild (20 USC§ 1415(1)( l)(B)). Conducting 12 resolution meetings in a single day indeed "'suggcst(s] individual oonsideration had nol betn given and the meetings \\'Cre pro fonna cxeteises 10 change.CSE placernent reoo1nmendation to the parent's preference... Responde11ts• directive to petitioner resolution proocsses est~b l ished co "use the d ispute in ttdernl and [s]tate la\v ai1d regulation'' and 10 cease "allow(i11g] 011e D is.tricl representative to un ilaterally deteiminc the plscemcnt for students \Vith disabili1ies a nd override CSE LR£ placcn1 reco111menda1 CJ'll ions" does not inhibil petitioner's ~· bil ity lo settle dispulcs, b-u1 rather inhibits only Lhe J lr<1c1ice of approving. unnecessarily restrictive placen1e:n1s by pennilting one distric.t rcprcsentati\•c 10 circtu1 1veil1 or overturn CSE decisioos at resolution n1 eetings \vhich i.s inconsistent with redcrnl and stale la'v and 1 ·cg11lations and L objec1ivcs oftJle IDEA. he 12 [* 13] 18 Ad1ni1'1js1ca1ive agencies ate en1illed 10 broad discretion in rendering de1 eru1inations on m3Uers they arc entitled to decide, a nd the age ncies ~ in1crpre1a1 ion of their ()\\'n cegulations and the statutes under \vbjch they function arc cnlitlcd to gre:.tt weight. This Court holds and determines that respondents' detern'lination. bastd upo1l the fo1 -egoing factors \'t'AS reasonable and rntionaJ, not in violation or lawful procedure, and was nC>I arbilnUy, capricious or an abuse of discretion, or affec1cd by an error of la\v ~~fatter ofShurgin y Al)lbgcb, 56 NY2d 700 [1982); br)•llct of Pell y Boar<! Qf fd11catjoo, 34 NY2d 2Z2, 231 I 1974)). Accordingly it is ADJUDGED th.at !he petition is dismissed and the relief requested therein is in au respects denied. l11is co1 lstin1tes the Dec:ision and O rder of the Court. l'his Decision and Order is returned 10 ihe /\ttorney General. AJI othecpapers are delivered to the Sup,emeCourt Clerk c for transmission to the County C lerk. 111 signing of this Decision and Order shnJJ not consfjtute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Coonsel is not relieved front the applicable provisions of this rule \Vith regard to tiling, entry and No1ice of Entry. Metnor::tndum consfjtutes the Decision ru1d O rder of the Court. SO ORDERED. c"NTE.R. Oared: TrO)'. Ne\v York December 30, 20 13 ll

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.