M.L. et al v. New York City Department of Education, No. 1:2013cv00574 - Document 37 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying re: 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by B.L., M.L., 27 granting CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. filed by New York City Department of Educatio n. From all indications, K.L. is an engaging, hardworking, and deserving young girl. She has dedicated parents who have invested substantial time, money, and effort into K.L.' s growth and development. The Court regrets this difficult decision. Unfortunately, the Court is bound by the law. For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that K.L.'s 2011-2012 IEP was procedurally and substantively adequate. Therefore, the DOE's motion is GRANTED, (ECF No. 27), and Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 18). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/31/2014) (kgo)