Hensley v. Williamsville Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 20 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Index No.: 804182/2021 |
| Citation | 72 Misc.3d 1097,150 N.Y.S.3d 513 |
| Parties | Dana HENSLEY, on behalf of her minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Danielle Macaulay, on behalf of her minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Jill Licata, on behalf of her minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Mark Speyer, on behalf of his minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Charles Maclay, on behalf of his minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Clarissa Zador; on behalf of her minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Parag Parikh, on behalf of his minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, For Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, Article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, and/or Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution. v. WILLIAMSVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board of Education of the Williamsville Central School District; Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York; New York State Department of Health ; and New York State Education Department, Respondents/Defendants. Robert Dinero, on behalf of his minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff, For Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, Article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, and/or Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution. v. Orchard Park Central School District ; Board of Education of the Orchard Park Central School District; Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York; New York State Department of Health ; and New York State Education Department, Respondents/Defendants |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP, Paul J. Cambria, Jr., Esq., Jeffrey F. Reina, Esq., Todd J. Aldinger, Esq., Attorneys for Petitioners
HARRIS BEACH PLLC, Tracie Lopardi, Esq., Brian C. Mahoney, Esq., Joshua D. Steele, Esq., Meaghan T. Feenan, Esq., Attorneys for Williamsville Central School District
WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, Ryan G. Smith, Esq., Kevin G. Cope, Esq., Angela Kutzfara, Esq., Attorneys for Orchard Park Central School District
LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York, David J. Sleight, Esq., Kathleen M. Kaczor, Esq., Heather L. McKay, Esq., Attorneys for State Respondents
In this hybrid Article 78 proceeding, Petitioners seek, inter alia , a judgment:
In the alternative, Petitioners seek declaratory judgment that the Hybrid/Remote Learning model is illegal.
The Court previously denied Petitioners’ request for a temporary restraining order. See Memorandum Decision , dated April 6, 2021. In light of the CDC updating its guidance on social distancing and its effect on returning children to school, the Court directed the State Respondents to similarly update their guidance and policies. Thereafter, after further argument, the Court denied Petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction. See Decision & Order , dated April 28, 2021. However, in its Decision & Order, the Court held:
Conflicting affidavits and studies, purportedly by experts, which arrived at different conclusions as to whether three (3) feet or (6) feet of distancing is acceptable distancing for middle and high school students in a "high transmission" area have presented triable issues of fact requiring a hearing to determine whether the School District's decision to adhere to the State's arguably irrational guidelines is arbitrary and capricious.
Id. at p. 30. The Court also directed that any answers or motions to dismiss be filed prior to the hearing. Those motions were deemed submitted and oral argument was waived pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.8. A hearing was held on May 7, 2021 and May 10, 2021. In light of the volume of the submissions previously received, the Court dispensed with the need for further writings. As such, the Court's decision is as follows.
Id. , at p. 27. Yet, still, Respondents filed motions to dismiss the Petition.
Because pleadings are granted liberal construction, "[t]he facts are to be presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference" in a moving parties favor to see if they fit within any cognizable legal theory. Younis v. Martin , 60 A.D.3d 1373, 876 N.Y.S.2d 587 (4th Dept. 2009).
The State Respondents in both actions filed motions to dismiss. Although quite similar, the State Respondents maintain that the State is in the best position to set public policy when determining how best to re-open schools. Further, State Respondents insist that the issue of determining public policy in the middle of a pandemic is nonjusticiable. State Respondents also argue that the matter is moot since children have returned to school. Also, State Respondents argue that the Court cannot entertain the relief requested as the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the State Respondents, in that the DOH and DOE were not properly served. State Respondents also argue that Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not making application to the Commissioner of Education. Moreover, State Respondents argue that the action is time-barred by the four (4) month statute of limitations because the action was not commenced within four (4) months of the civil practice suspensions on November 4, 2020. More substantively, State Respondents insist that Petitioners do not have a "colorable" claim under the New York State Education Law and the Executive Law.
The Court finds these arguments without merit. Of course this matter is justiciable. While the State would prefer that its policies escape judicial review, the very essence of an Article 78 proceeding is a challenge to a determination of an agency or government body or official. Article 78 of the CPLR is the main procedural vehicle to review and challenge administrative action in New York. Given that pleadings are given every favorable inference and the issues raised by Petitioners are clearly within the marketplace of questionable determinations, the public policy doctrine does not exempt them from scrutiny.
On judicial review of an administrative action under CPLR Article 78, courts must uphold the administrative exercise of discretion unless it has "no rational basis" or the action is "arbitrary and capricious." Matter of Pell v. Board of Ed. Union Free School District , 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 (1974). Id. at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ; See also Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 (1986). Rationality is the key in determining whether an action is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Matter of Pell v. Board of Education , 34 N.Y.2d at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321. The Court's function is completed on finding that a rational basis supports the administrative determination. See Howard v. Wyman , 28 N.Y.2d 434, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 271 N.E.2d 528 (1971). "Where the administrative interpretation is founded on a rational basis, that interpretation should be affirmed even if the court might have come to a different conclusion."
Mid-State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board , 112 A.D.2d 72, 491 N.Y.S.2d 634 (1st Dept. 1985) aff'd 66 N.Y.2d 1032, 499 N.Y.S.2d 398, 489 N.E.2d 1300 (1985) ; Matter of Savetsky v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Southampton , 5 A.D.3d 779, 774 N.Y.S.2d 188 (2d Dept. 2004).
The Court agrees with Petitioners that the claims are not moot. State Respondents ignore that secondary students are still subject to the restrictive hybrid learning model, the very policy that is being challenged by the Petitioners. Further, the regulations that are the subject of this lawsuit still exist and are being followed by both Williamsville and Orchard Park. To that end, the arguments are not moot.
It has not escaped the attention of the Court that State Respondents appeared at each court conference, argued, submitted papers, interposed an Answer and Return, participated in a mediation, and even called witnesses at a hearing on the merits. Yet, they insist that the Court does not have personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial