Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ZAHRAN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION NISKAYUNA CENT. SCHOOL DIST.

June 4, 2004.

IBRAHIM ZAHRAN, a disabled student, by his parent, AHMED ZAHRAN, Plaintiffs, -vs- THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NISKAYUNA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HURD, District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiff Ahmed Zahran ("plaintiffs"), on behalf of his minor son, Ibrahim Zahran ("Ibrahim" or "plaintiffs"), a disabled student, brought suit against defendants State of New York Department of Education ("DOE") and Board of Education of the Niskuyana Central School District ("District" or "Board"), alleging causes of action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (first cause of action), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law (second cause of action), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (third cause of action), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (fourth cause of action), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (fifth cause of action). The district cross-claimed against DOE, demanding that the state review officer's decision be partially reversed or modified.

  By Memorandum-Decision and Order dated February 10, 2004, the DOE's motion to dismiss the complaint and cross-claim as against it was granted. Zahran ex rel. Zahran v. N.Y. Dep't of Educ., 306 F. Supp.2d 204 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). On April 8, 2004, the District moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Docket No. 39.) Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment, also pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Docket No. 41.) Oral argument was heard on the summary judgment motions on June 2, 2004, in Albany, New York. Decision was reserved.

 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  The relevant facts of this case were extensively outlined in the February 10, 2004, Memorandum-Decision and Order, Id. at 206-08, and will not be repeated here. Familiarity with that decision ("Zahran I") will be assumed.

 III. DISCUSSION

  A. Summary Judgment Standard

  Summary judgment must be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 180 F.3d 426, 436 (2d Cir. 1999). Facts, inferences therefrom, and ambiguities must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

  Once the moving party has met the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, however, the nonmoving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. At that point, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 386. Indeed, to withstand a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that sufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49; Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 587.

  B. Article 89, Americans with Disabilities, and Rehabilitation Act Claims

  Plaintiffs have voluntarily withdrawn their second, fourth, and fifth causes of action, asserting claims under Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Docket No. 41, Attach. 6, p. 1.) Accordingly, those claims will be dismissed.

  C. IDEA Claim

  Though Zahran I addressed plaintiffs' claims against just the DOE, the only defendant which had moved to dismiss, it applies with equal force to the propriety of plaintiffs' first cause of action against the District.

  In the first cause of action, plaintiffs allege that Ibrahim was deprived of a free appropriate public education for the 2001-02 academic school year, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). In Zahran I, it was noted that compensatory education is available as appropriate relief under the IDEA, but monetary damages are not. 306 F. Supp.2d at 210 (citing Garro v. State of Conn., 23 F.3d 734, 736 (2d Cir. 1994); Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.