You are here: / / LAWSUIT ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SOUND BASIC EDUCATION CAN PROCEED,...
,

LAWSUIT ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SOUND BASIC EDUCATION CAN PROCEED, BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND SYRACUSE. ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a lawsuit alleging school districts’ failure to provide the sound basic education guaranteed by the state constitution could proceed, but only with respect to school districts in New York City and Syracuse. The attempt to state causes of action statewide was rejected. The complaint must specifically allege the failure district by district. A second lawsuit, alleging failure to properly fund the schools in New York City, brought by different plaintiffs [Aristy-Farer], was dismissed in its entirety:

The NYSER [New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights] plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged deficient inputs and outputs with respect to New York City and, although in less detail, Syracuse, that give defendants adequate notice of what a potential remedy could require of them. In that regard, the NYSER complaint alleges deficient inputs (a lack of qualified teachers and principals, low levels of support staff, outdated curricula, unsuccessful English as a Second Language programs, overly large class sizes, lack of basic materials such as textbooks and chalk, a reduction in after-school and summer programs, and inadequate and unclean buildings and facilities) with respect to Syracuse and New York City, with some degree of specificity. The complaint further alleges deficient outputs with respect to those school districts (poor standardized test proficiency, high failure and drop-out rates, poor English proficiency, and inability to meet basic requirements to gain admission to gain admission to City or State colleges because their high schools do not offer basic course requirements).

The complaint also alleges a causal link between inadequate State funding and the failure of those two school districts to provide a sound basic education. … [G]oing forward, plaintiffs here will need to adduce evidence at trial proving, on the basis of current data, that the State has breached its constitutional obligation to provide a sound basic education to students in public schools. Should plaintiffs be successful, it will be up to the State to craft an appropriate response, subject to judicial review, because the courts have “neither the authority, nor the ability, nor the will, to micromanage education financing” … . Aristy-Farer v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05175, CtApp 6-27-17

 

You might also like
​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, THE PEOPLE AGREED TO DISMISS THE TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PEOPLE THEN APPEALED; THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVER A DISSENT, HELD THE MATTER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE (CT APP). ​
THE 2009 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW ALLOWED LUMP SUM PAYMENTS OF SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARDS; CLAIMANT DIED BEFORE THE SLU AWARD WAS MADE; CLAIMANT’S ESTATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LUMP SUM AWARD (CT APP).
COURT’S FAILURE TO ORDER READBACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN ADDITION TO DIRECT WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PRESERVATION REQUIRED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).
Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement of Damaged Property Unreasonable If Replacement Cannot Reasonably Be Done Within Two Years
In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell
DURING MARCH AND APRIL 2020 CLAIMANT, WHO WORKED IN RETAIL IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC, WAS EXEMPT FROM THE EMERGENCY WORK RESTRICTIONS; CLAIMANT CONTRACTED COVID, SUFFERED A STROKE AND WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR FOUR MONTHS; HIS CLAIM CONSTITUTED A “COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT;” CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED AN EXTRAORDINARY RISK OF EXPOSURE DUE TO FREQUENT CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC “IN AN AREA WHERE COVID WAS PREVALENT” (CT APP). ​
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BAIL BONDSMAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP THE PREMIUM POSTED TO UNDERWRITE A BAIL... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT WARNED...