You are here: / / THE NEW YORK CLASSROOM-SIZE REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES...

THE NEW YORK CLASSROOM-SIZE REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVES, NOT DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE INDEPENDENTLY FULFILLED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that the list of classroom options for special classes for students with disabilities in the classroom-size regulations are mutually exclusive. A student’s committee on special education (CSE) need only choose one of the listed alternatives that best meets the student’s needs:

Plaintiff is the mother of O.F., who has cerebral palsy, visual impairment, a seizure disorder, and scoliosis. … … In 2021, the CSE determined during its annual review that a 12:1+(3:1) placement “would be … appropriate” … . The CSE considered and rejected other class options as inappropriate for O.F. * * *​

Plaintiff filed a due process complaint challenging, among other things, the 2021 IEP’s 12:1+(3:1) classroom recommendation. * * *

The Second Circuit certified the following question for our review: “When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under [8 NYCRR 200.6 (h) (4)], do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE may pick?” … . * * *

​​… 8 NYCRR 200.6 (h) (4) provides alternatives. We thus conclude that the regulation requires a CSE to exercise its knowledge and expertise to select the listed alternative that would best serve a student’s individual needs. Cruz v Banks, 2026 NY Slip Op 00821, CtApp 2-17-26

 

You might also like
A Union Is Not an Entity Separate from Its Members—A Union, Therefore, Can Not Be Sued By a Member Unless Every Member Participated In the Action Which Gave Rise to the Suit
In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period
THE UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 38 MONTHS IN SEEKING A WARRANT FOR A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE RAPIST BY THE COMPLAINANT RIGHT AWAY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT’S USE OF VANS WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT.
THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PRO SE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
‘RELIABLE HEARSAY’ IN A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION (PSI) REPORT IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A FINDING DEFENDANT USED VIOLENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF A SEX OFFENSE; LEVEL TWO RISK ASSESSMENT UPHELD (CT APP).
THE USE OF TRANSLATORS TO DOCUMENT INFORMATION IN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DID NOT RENDER THE INSTRUMENTS FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT BY ADDING A LAYER OF HEARSAY (CT APP). ​
Where a Defendant Has Been Convicted of an Armed Felony or an Enumerated Sex Offense Pursuant to CPL (Criminal Procedure Law) 720.10(2)a)(ii ie (iii), Even If the Defendant Has Not Requested or Has Explicitly Waived “Youthful Offender” Status, the Court Must Determine, On the Record, Whether Mitigating Circumstances Exist, and, If So, Must Determine On the Record Whether the Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

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

SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BASED UPON A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY... IN 2024, ERLINGER V US HELD THAT A JURY MUST DETERMINE WHETHER A LOOKBACK PERIOD...