Rivas v. Banks

Background

Claudia Rivas sued David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education. Rivas sued both as parent and natural guardian of S.C. and individually. The motion addressed an earlier Opinion and Order concerning plaintiffs’ challenge to the wheelchair accessibility of S.C.’s assigned school.

Motion for reconsideration

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration under Docket No. 29. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court also explained that repeating arguments previously considered and rejected ordinarily does not justify reconsideration.

Plaintiffs argued that the court had wrongly concluded that their accessibility challenge was not preserved for judicial review. They argued that requiring parents to preserve accessibility challenges created an undesirable burden. The court viewed that argument as a policy disagreement with the preservation framework described in a Second Circuit decision, not as a basis for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs also argued that the court had improperly deferred to the Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer on whether they had preserved the challenge. The court disagreed. It explained that neither officer had addressed the accessibility challenge and that the court had relied on decisions stating that an issue omitted from a due-process complaint may nevertheless be reviewable when both officers reach the issue on the merits.

Plaintiffs further disputed the court’s conclusion that the assigned school’s accessibility did not go to the heart of the dispute. The court said plaintiffs were merely repeating arguments already considered and rejected. Finally, plaintiffs argued that the Department of Education’s burden to show that it offered S.C. a free appropriate public education meant that plaintiffs’ accessibility challenge should not be treated as unpreserved. The court rejected that argument, stating that parents seeking to overturn a State Review Officer’s decision bear the burden of showing that the decision was insufficiently reasoned or supported. The court also said plaintiffs’ proposed approach would evade the preservation framework.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 29 and ordered defendants to confer with plaintiffs and file a proposed judgment consistent with the earlier Opinion and Order by February 12, 2024. This opinion itself addressed the request to reconsider the earlier ruling; it did not change that ruling.