CALHOUN, DOMINICK v. ILION CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
CA 11-00657
| N.Y. App. Div. | Dec 30, 2011Background
- Plaintiff, a former student, sued Ilion Central School District and teachers Ruff and Butchko for discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, plus Human Rights Law, defamation, and assault and battery.
- The trial court granted defendants' CPLR 3211/3212 motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and denied the claim to file a late notice of claim for assault and battery against Butchko.
- Plaintiff moved to amend to serve a late notice of claim under Education Law § 3813 (2-a) for the assaults against Butchko; the court denied again.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are barred by IDEA procedures | Plaintiff argues IDEA procedures are exhausted and allow federal claims. | Defendants contend IDEA exhaustion bars claims under ADA/ Rehabilitation Act. | ADA/ Rehabilitation Act claims reinstated; IDEA exhaustion not required to bar them. |
| Whether failure to pursue SRO review under IDEA precludes jurisdiction | Plaintiff contends lack of SRO review is not jurisdictional to ADA/ Rehabilitation Act claims. | Defendants assert Education Law § 4404 review requirement would deprive court of jurisdiction. | Lack of SRO review did not deprive subject matter jurisdiction; no mandatory dismissal. |
| Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel bars the ADA/ Rehabilitation Act claims | Plaintiff asserts no bar due to distinct federal claims not fully resolved in IDEA proceedings. | Defendants argue preclusion applies to some related claims. | Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar the federal discrimination claims. |
| Whether notice of claim was required for Butchko's acts outside the scope of employment | Butchko's conduct constitutes intentional torts outside scope of employment; notice should not be required. | Education Law § 3813 requires notice for claims against employees within scope of employment. | Plaintiff not required to file notice for Butchko's individual acts; claims reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (abandonment of claims and standard for addressing issues)
- Polera v Board of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City School Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) ( IDEA exhaustion and relation to ADA/ Rehabilitation Act claims)
- Cave v East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2008) (IHO/SRO review framework under IDEA in New York)
- Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494 (N.Y. 1984) (preclusion in administrative determinations)
- Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343 (N.Y. 1999) (principles of res judicata in NY law)
- Lasky v City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 598 (1st Dep’t 2001) (preclusion analysis for related municipal claims)
- Adirondack League Club v Sierra Club, 92 N.Y.2d 591 (N.Y. 1998) (collateral estoppel applicability discretion)
- Rew v County of Niagara, 73 A.D.3d 1463 (4th Dep’t 2010) (intentional torts outside employment scope; notice not required)