You are here: / / THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL DISTRICTS...

THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FREE EDUCATION TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THEY TURN 22 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the New York State Education Department (SED) properly held that school districts, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law, are required to provide free education to individuals with disabilities until the day before they turn 22. The opinion resolved a conflict between applicable laws and is too complex to fairly summarize here. Matter of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 7-17-25

Same issues and result in Matter of Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04211, Third Dept 7-17-25

 

You might also like
NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (THIRD DEPT).
PARTY OBJECTING TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES’ NOMINATING PETITION DID NOT PROPERLY NOTIFY THE CANDIDATE OF THE OBJECTIONS, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER.
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.
Insufficient Justification for Removing Inmate from Hearing
THE AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY CPLR 5001; THE REQUEST FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING SUIT (THIRD DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING... THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE...