Calhoun v. Ilion Central School District
90 A.D.3d 1686
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff, a former student, sues the School District alleging discrimination under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Human Rights Law tied to his learning disability.
- Plaintiff also asserts defamation against teacher Christine Ruff and assault/battery claims against teacher Peter Butchko.
- Defendants move to dismiss under CPLR 3211 and for summary judgment under CPLR 3212; Supreme Court granted the motion.
- Appeal challenges only the ADA/ Rehabilitation Act and assault/battery dismissals; other claims are abandoned.
- Appellate court reinstates ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, rejects IDEA exhaustion as a prerequisite here, and reinstates the assault/battery claims against Butchko; issues related to HRL and defamation are deemed abandoned.
- Court addresses res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses, and rules on whether notice of claim was required for Butchko.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were properly dismissed | ADA/RA claims should proceed; IDEA exhaustion not required | Claims barred by IDEA procedures and disposition | ADA/RA claims reinstated; not barred by IDEA exhaustion |
| Whether IDEA exhaustion was required before filing suit | Exhaustion not required for ADA/RA claims | Exhaustion required under IDEA | Not required; procedural compliance with IDEA met; jurisdiction preserved for ADA/RA claims |
| Whether res judicata applies to bar federal disability claims | Claims could not have been brought in IDEA proceeding | Res judicata bars subsequent actions | Res judicata inapplicable to these federal claims; not precluded by prior IDEA proceeding |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies to preclude claims | SRO finding mootness does not resolve federal claims | Collateral estoppel should apply | Collateral estoppel discretionary; not required to apply here |
| Whether notices of claim were required for Butchko’s conduct | Not within scope of employment; not required | Notice of claim required | Not required; 11th/12th causes reinstated; misconduct outside scope of employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Polera v Board of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City School Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion principles under IDEA and its relation to ADA/RA claims)
- Cave v East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2008) (IHO/SRO procedures; role in federal action)
- Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 (1984) (res judicata effect of agency determinations)
- Adirondack League Club v Sierra Club, 92 N.Y.2d 591 (1998) (collateral estoppel applicability and discretion)
- Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984 (4th Dept 1994) (abandonment and scope of review in appellate context)
- Hoffman v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 49 N.Y.2d 121 (1979) (educational malpractice standards assumed not controlling here)
- Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 N.Y.2d 440 (1979) (limits of educational claims in public school context)