P.C. v. Rye City Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–CV–6006 (CS),15–CV–6006 (CS) |
| Citation | 232 F.Supp.3d 394 |
| Parties | P.C. and K.C., individually and on behalf of student A.C., Plaintiffs, v. RYE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Gerry McMahon, The Law Offices of Gerry McMahon, LLC, Danbury, Connecticut, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Susan Gibson, Ingerman Smith, LLP, Hauppauge, New York, Counsel for Defendant.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 18), and Defendant's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 20). Plaintiffs P.C. and K.C. ("PC" and "KC," or the "parents") bring this action on behalf of their child, A.C. ("AC"), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEIA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq. ;1 Article 89 of the New York State Education Law; and Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education against Defendant Rye City School District (the "District"). Plaintiffs seek review of an administrative decision by a State Review Officer ("SRO") at the New York State Education Department ("NYSED") affirming the decision of an Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO"). The IHO found that: (1) the District did not deny AC a Free and Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") during the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years because its in-district school recommendation for 2010–11 and 2011–12, the Midland Elementary School ("Midland"), and its out-of-district school recommendation in 2012–13, the Board of Cooperative Educational Services ("BOCES") Gifted Program at Irvington ("Irvington"), were sufficient to meet AC's educational needs; (2) the private school—Eagle Hill School ("Eagle Hill") in Greenwich, Connecticut—at which AC's parents placed him for those school years was not an appropriate placement; (3) equitable considerations did not support the parents' claim for reimbursement for the 2010–11 school year because the parents did not give the District adequate notice of their intention to request reimbursement for an out-of-district placement for AC, but did support the parents' claim for reimbursement for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years because at those times the parents did give adequate notice;2 and (4) the District was not required to reimburse the parents for the costs of tuition at Eagle Hill for any of the three years. (IHO Decision 118–19.)3
The SRO dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal in its entirety, finding that the evidence in the record supported the IHO's determination that the District offered AC a FAPE for the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years. The SRO did not reach the issues of whether Eagle Hill constituted an appropriate unilateral placement or whether equitable considerations supported the parents' claim. (SRO Decision 21.)4
Plaintiffs seek an order reversing the IHO and SRO decisions as erroneous and awarding Plaintiffs tuition reimbursement for the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years, among other things. (Compl. at 21–22.)5 Defendant seeks an order upholding the SRO's decision in its entirety and dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint. (D's Mem. 1.)6 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
AC attended schools within the District through the 2009–10 (second grade) school year. In that time, he received educational services in a general education setting at Midland. (SRO Decision 3.) For part of first grade and all of second grade, AC operated under a plan established pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Id. at 2–3.) This plan was created because AC was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
, a developmental coordination disorder, and sensory integration dysfunction. (Id. ; see Dist. Ex. 3, at 1.) AC was first classified as a student with a disability on January 15, 2009, during a meeting of the local Committee on Special Education ("CSE")—comprised of parents, teachers, a school psychologist and a district representative—which convened because AC was a student eligible for special education services. (See Dist. Ex. 3, at 1, 4.) The CSE was responsible for working with AC and his parents to develop an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") that set forth his social, emotional and educational needs and goals. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)–(B) ; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 –21; N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402 ; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 200.3, 200.4(d)(2). AC had been referred to the CSE on November 12, 2008. (See Dist. Ex. 32.)
During the January 15, 2009 meeting, the CSE discussed AC's program and placement for the remainder of the 2008–09 (first grade) school year. Among other things, the CSE concluded that occupational therapy would address AC's motor weaknesses and help him become more independent and self-sufficient. (See Dist. Ex. 3, at 1–2.) It recommended that he continue learning in a general education setting but that he also receive weekly occupational therapy on both a 1:1 and 3:1 basis, as well as monthly psychological and speech/language consultations. (Id. at 1.)
The CSE reconvened on May 4, 2009 and found that AC's "present cognitive abilities and academic levels [were] meeting both grade- and age-level expectations," and that he had "demonstrated growth in all academic areas" since the beginning of his first grade year and since the prior CSE evaluation. (Dist. Ex. 4, at 3.) Nonetheless, the CSE further stated that AC remained highly anxious and continued to experience difficulties navigating his environment, focusing on tasks and following directions. (Id. ) It further stated that AC would need additional modifications to his academic program and goals to be successful. (Id. at 6.) The CSE therefore recommended two weekly sessions with a resource consultant teacher, additional counseling, and a daily shadow aide as part of his IEP for the 2009–10 school year, in addition to the related services the CSE was already providing. (Id. )
The CSE next met on May 3, 2010 to review AC's progress and develop his IEP for the 2010–11 school year. The CSE found that AC was struggling to initiate and sustain work in all academic areas, and that mathematics in particular posed the greatest challenges. (Dist. Ex. 5, at 4.) It noted, however, that AC also exhibited strengths in reading with intonation, explicit comprehension skills, spelling and creative writing. (Id. ) With respect to interpersonal skills, the CSE found that AC still experienced anxiety over social interactions and continued to struggle to develop quality relationships with peers within the classroom. (Id. at 5.) The CSE maintained many of the same services offered during the 2009–10 IEP, but recommended enhancements to nearly all of them. For instance, it increased AC's 1:1 sessions with the resource consultant teacher to five times a week, rather than two; increased the monthly occupational therapy and speech/language therapy consultations to sixty minutes, rather than thirty; it doubled AC's weekly counseling; and offered support by a teaching assistant ("TA") on a 1:1 basis, rather than 3:1, for the duration of the school day. (Id. at 7.) The CSE further recommended a new hourly consultation on a monthly basis with the resource consultant teacher. (Id. ) The CSE felt that these enhanced services would support AC's academic and social growth and help him manage his anxiety throughout the school day and within the general education environment. (Id. )
On June 4, 2010, AC was accepted at Eagle Hill for the 2010–11 school year. (See Dist. Ex. 33.) On June 10, 2010, the parents submitted an application to the District for transportation, which noted that AC would be attending Eagle Hill beginning on September 10, 2010. (See Dist. Ex. 34.)
The CSE reconvened on May 13, 2011. At that meeting, KC stated that AC had become less anxious during the past year at Eagle Hill, and as a result had gained confidence and focus. (Dist. Ex. 6, at 2.) Eagle's Hill's educational director and guidance counselor also stated that the transition was very difficult for AC, but that his social skills, reading comprehension, and certain functioning skills had improved. (Id. ) KC expressed her belief that if AC were to return to Midland School for the 2011–12 school year, his anxiety would increase and he would again become overwhelmed. (Id. ) After reviewing at length AC's academic, physical and social development over the past year, the CSE recommended the same offerings for the 2011–12 school year as it had for the 2010–11 school year, based on its belief that the resource consultant teacher, speech/language therapy and 1:1 TA were still necessary to bolster AC's academic engagement, that the psychological counseling would aid his anxiety and social development, and that the occupational therapy would address his motor and sensory skills. (Id. at 5–7.)
On August 14, 2011, the parents wrote a letter to Dr. Anat Mor, the school psychologist at Midland, explaining that while they appreciated all of the services that the District had provided to AC, and despite "the excellent IEP that was created and implemented for him," they felt Midland was not appropriate due to the "amazing success" AC experienced at Eagle Hill. (Dist. Ex. 36, at 1.) The parents further noted that Midland's offerings in its 2010–11 IEP had been "very similar" to what Eagle Hill offered, but suggested that they had "had no other choice but to enroll" AC at Eagle Hill for the previous school year because its small size provided a less overwhelming environment and its students complete their homework at school before going home, which the parents believed would reduce burdens on them—an apparently important consideration given KC's breast cancer
diagnosis in late spring 2010 and ensuing treatment cycle. (See id. at 2.) The parents' letter confirmed that they would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.R. v. Katonah Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist.
...IEP, however, is not inappropriate “simply because it does not change significantly on an annual basis.” P.C. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 232 F.Supp.3d 394, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal citation omitted).[11] More importantly, this Court finds that the CSE engaged in a thorough “reassessment” ......
-
B.M. v. Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist.
...to the expertise of the administrative officers.” L.O., 822 F.3d at 118 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also P.C., 232 F.Supp.3d at 407 (noting that “must defer to the SRO's decision on matters requiring educational expertise unless it concludes that the decision was ......
-
L.J.B. v. N. Rockland Cent. Sch. Dist.
...non-disabled peers.” Id. at 161. “New York's regulations implementing the goals of the IDEA ‘appear to track the IDEA closely.'” P.C., 232 F.Supp.3d at 408 (quoting Frank G. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 363 (2d Cir. 2006)); see N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 4401 to 4410-b. Parents are entitled to challe......
-
CN ex rel. EN v. Katonah Lewisboro Sch. Dist.
...the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C); see P.C. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 232 F. Supp. 3d 394, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). The court's review "requires a more critical appraisal of the agency determination than clear-error review but......