Paynter v. State of NY

• Decision Date: 26 June 2003
• Parties: AMBER PAYNTER, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, MONA STONE, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

100 N.Y.2d 434

797 N.E.2d 1225

765 N.Y.S.2d 819

AMBER PAYNTER, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, MONA STONE, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued May 8, 2003.

Decided June 26, 2003.

James C. Gocker, Rochester, Public Interest Law Office of Rochester (Jonathan Feldman and Bryan D. Hetherington of counsel), and Greater Upstate Law Project (Edwin J. Lopez-Soto, Ellen Yacknin and Steven Brown of counsel), for appellants.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Denise A. Hartman, Caitlin Halligan, Daniel Smirlock, Peter H. Schiff and Jane A. Conrad of counsel), for State of New York and others, respondents. Harris Beach LLP, Pittsford (Daniel J. Moore and John T. Refermat of counsel), for Avon Central Schools and others, respondents.

Blitman & King LLP, Rochester (Jules L. Smith of counsel), and James E. Ryan for Rochester Teachers Association, amicus curiae.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York City (Bruce H. Schneider, Kevin J. Curnin, Joseph E. Strauss and Meredith L. Codlin of counsel), for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and another, amici curiae. Linda S. Kingsley, Corporation Counsel, Rochester, and John C. Brittain, Houston, Texas, for City of Rochester, amicus curiae.

Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur with Chief Judge KAYE; Judge READ concurs in result only; Judge SMITH dissents in a separate opinion.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Chief Judge KAYE.

This appeal, like Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York (100 NY2d 893 [2003] [decided today] [CFE II]), claims that the State failed in its promise, made in the Education Article of the State Constitution, to afford its children the opportunity for a sound basic education (NY Const, art XI, § 1).

This appeal is unlike CFE II geographically —it concerns the Rochester City School District (RCSD) rather than New York City; procedurally—it is here after dismissal of the complaint on a pleadings motion rather than after trial; and perhaps most significantly of all, conceptually. Whereas CFE II premised its action on the State's failure to fund the New York City education system, plaintiffs here claim no inadequacy of teaching, facilities or instrumentalities of learning. Rather, they charge that the State's fault lies in practices and policies that have resulted in high concentrations of racial minorities and poverty in the school district, leading to abysmal student performance. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiffs' novel theory does not constitute a claim under the Education Article, and the complaint was therefore correctly dismissed.

Plaintiffs are 15 African-American schoolchildren who reside in the City of Rochester and attend public schools in the RCSD. They purport to represent a class of all children, and a subclass of racial minority children, who attend these schools. Defendants are the State of New York, the Regents of the University of the State of New York and their Chancellor, the New York State Education Department and its Commissioner (collectively, the State), and the RCSD and all 24 suburban school districts located wholly or partly within Monroe County (School Districts). Plaintiffs originally sued only the State, but were directed to join the School Districts (270 AD2d 819 [4th Dept 2000]). They have done so in their second amended complaint, which is the subject of defendants' dismissal motion.¹

Plaintiffs allege that their schools have high levels of poverty concentration and racial isolation; that these attributes correlate with substandard academic performance; and that by every measure of student achievement RCSD schools do not deliver a sound basic education as required by the Education Article. They further allege that the State's system of school residency requirements and nonresident tuition requirements (see Education Law § 3202 [1], [2]), together with other state laws and policies, "enforce and perpetuate segregation of RCSD students by race and economic status," a condition that the State has taken no affirmative measures to ameliorate. Several individual plaintiffs also allege that they would prefer, but are unable, to attend better schools which exist elsewhere in Monroe County. Plaintiffs do not, however, allege that the substandard academic performance in their schools stems from any lack of funds or inadequacy in the teaching, facilities or instrumentalities of learning in the RCSD. Their premise that the State violates the Education Article thus rests not on a lack of education funding but on its failure to mitigate demographic factors that may affect student performance.

Aside from their Education Article claim, plaintiffs set forth further causes of action alleging on the basis of the same facts that the State has denied them the equal protection of the laws (NY Const, art I, § 11), and alleging, under 42 USC § 1983, that the State's conduct has a disparate impact on minority students, in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its regulations. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the State to provide them with a sound basic education; educational opportunities equal to those provided to children in other Monroe County school districts; education in a racially diverse environment not marked by high concentrations of poverty; and ancillary relief.

On defendants' motions, Supreme Court dismissed the claims against the School Districts on the ground that plaintiffs set forth no allegations and seek no remedies against them (187 Misc 2d 227, 230-231 [2000]). As to the State's motion, the court further held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Education Article but had set forth viable causes of action under the Equal Protection Clause and title VI. A divided Appellate Division modified by granting the State's motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. We now affirm.²

The Education Article requires the Legislature to "provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated" (NY Const, art XI, § 1). In Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist (57 NY2d 27 [1982] [Levittown]) we concluded that neither the Education Article nor the Equal Protection Clause requires the State to provide equal educational opportunities in every school district. We recognized, however, that students have a constitutional right to a "sound basic education" and could prove a violation of this right by demonstrating "gross and glaring inadequacy" in their schools (id. at 48).

Thirteen years later, we held that plaintiffs alleging such inadequacy in the New York City schools had set forth a viable cause of action (see Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307 [1995] [CFE I]). As we explained, a sound basic education consists of "the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable children to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury" (id. at 316). The right to such an education, in turn, entails that children are entitled to schools that provide various "essentials":

"Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Children should have access to minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks. Children are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas" (id. at 317).

As we further explained, evidence of whether students are receiving a sound basic education may include—in addition to proof about these essentials—facts showing the outcomes of the educational process, such as examination results. Such facts, we warned, must be used cautiously, as "a myriad of factors" influence student performance (id.). Finally, we indicated that the CFE plaintiffs would "have to establish a causal link between the present funding system and any proven failure to provide a sound basic education" to them (id. at 318).

Thus, the elements of the CFE plaintiffs' viable Education Article claim consisted of evidence, first, that the State fails to provide them a sound basic education in that it provides deficient inputs—teaching, facilities and instrumentalities of learning—which lead to deficient outputs such as test results and graduation rates; and, second, that this failure is causally connected to the funding system.

The complaint in the present action tests whether an Education Article claim by students against the State may consist of an abundance of terrible educational results—some of the lowest test scores and graduation rates in the state—with no assertion that these results are caused by any deficiency in teaching, facilities or instrumentalities of learning, or any lack of funding. The cause they allege is the demographic composition of the school district in which they reside, together with the existence of obstacles to attending school in another district. In their own words, plaintiffs believe they are not at all required to "allege inadequate educational services to state a claim," though they have done so inasmuch as "the students who attend a given school are indeed the most important `input' affecting the operation of the school and the resources needed in that school." Thus, the only deficient input plaintiffs allege is the composition of the student body of RCSD schools.³ Plaintiffs say that no matter how well the State funds their schools, if plaintiffs and their classmates fail, it is the State's responsibility to change the school population until the...