UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID STRECK and DONNA STRECK,
Plaintiffs, 1:04-CV-202 (GLS/DRH) v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE EAST GREENBUSH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROBERT HENNIGAN, TERRANCE L. BREWER, ROBIN ZALOB, AMANDA BAGNATO, MICHAEL KUZDZAL, STEPHEN PHELPS, and DEBBIE GONYEA,1
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
DONOHUE, SABO LAW FIRM FRED HUTCHISON, ESQ. 24 Aviation Road Albany, New York 12212-5056
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
GIRVIN, FERLAZZO LAW FIRM GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ. 20 Corporate Woods Boulevard 2nd Floor Albany, New York 12211-2350
1 Defendants Hennigan, Brewer, Zalob, Bagnato, Kuzdzal, Phelps, and Gonyea are sued both individually and in their official capacities. See Dkt. No. 1.
Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Judge
ORDER
On December 15, 2005, this court heard oral argument on
defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 31, 41. At that hearing, the
court dismissed plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim and strongly encouraged the parties
to settle the remainder of the above-entitled action. See id. Following the
hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and were unable to
reach an agreement. Now pending are several letter motions submitted by
both parties, requesting that the court either schedule a conference or
decide the remaining arguments contained in defendants’ motion to
dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 31, 45, 46, 48.
The remainder of plaintiffs’ claims2 find their source in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.3 To the extent that
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, monetary damages
2 Plaintiffs’ breach of contract theory fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there is no indication in the complaint that a contract existed between the parties. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract is dismissed. 3 Plaintiffs’ claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act address the alleged denial of access to an appropriate educational program on the basis of a disability. Plaintiffs’ IDEA claim addresses their dissatisfaction with the content of the Individualized Education Plan provided. See Zahran v. N.Y. Dep’t of Educ., 306 F. Supp. 2d 204, 212-214 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).
2
are improper under the IDEA. See Zahran v. N.Y. Dep’t of Educ., 306 F.
Supp. 2d 204, 210 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). However, plaintiffs are entitled to
recover compensatory education under the statute. See id.
The court has considered the parties’ arguments, the relevant law,
and the equitable considerations, as outlined by the parties in their motion
papers. See Dkt. Nos. 31, 34, 38, 44, 45, 48. To the extent that plaintiffs
seek compensation, the court awards judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the
amount of $6,200.00,4 representing both the just value of compensatory
education and the value of plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket expenses related to the
independent evaluation. See Dkt. No. 48. However, in all other respects,
plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that judgment is granted in favor of plaintiffs in the
amount of $6,200.00, representing both the just value of compensatory
education and the value of plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket expenses related to the
independent evaluation; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ IDEA claim is DISMISSED; and it is further
4 $4,700.00 is just compensation and $1,500.00 is for plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket expenses related to the independent evaluation. See Dkt. No. 48.
3
ORDERED that the clerk close the above-entitled action; and
it is further
ORDERED that the clerk provide a copy of this Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 29, 2006 Albany, New York
4