R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-02257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In R.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Oetken denied NYDOE’s reconsideration motion as moot because the reimbursements were already ordered.
The New York City Department of Education and the plaintiffs seeking private-school tuition reimbursements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
What happened
In R.S. v. New York City Department of Education, the New York City Department of Education challenged an earlier order about when tuition reimbursements for private school would begin under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Department argued that the Court had wrongly selected June 23, 2020, as the date from which reimbursements were required. But later decisions had already awarded the plaintiffs reimbursements covering the disputed period.
Judge Oetken ruled that the reconsideration motion was moot because changing the earlier date would have no practical effect. He denied the Department’s motion and also denied the plaintiffs’ late request for interest on the judgment.
The detailed version
- R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-02257
- James Oetken
- Feb. 17, 2023
Background
The New York City Department of Education and other defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier memorandum and order. That earlier order resolved the plaintiffs’ request for judgment based on the administrative record and addressed the date from which tuition reimbursements for private school were owed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The defendants argued that the Court had erred by fixing June 23, 2020, as the date from which the Department had to provide reimbursements.
Reason for the Ruling
The Court concluded that reconsideration would have no practical effect. A September 14, 2022 findings of fact and decision had awarded the plaintiffs tuition reimbursements for July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. An earlier findings of fact and decision had awarded reimbursements from the beginning of the 2019 school year through June 30, 2020. The Court therefore determined that the defendants had already been ordered to provide reimbursements for the period at issue.
The plaintiffs also requested pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in their opposition to the reconsideration motion. The Court denied that late-stage request for the same reason.
Disposition
The Court stated that the defendants’ motion for reconsideration was DENIED as moot. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 43. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.