Cruz v. Banks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: 24-1147
• Status: Published

Opinion

24-1147 Cruz v. Banks

1 United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit 3 _________________ 4 5 August Term 2024 6 7 Argued: December 20, 2024 8 Decided: April 7, 2026 9 10 No. 24-1147 11 _________________ 12 13 NEYSHA CRUZ, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF O.F. AND INDIVIDUALLY, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 v. 18 19 DAVID C. BANKS, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 20 21 Defendants-Appellees. 22 23 _________________ 24 25 On Appeal from the United States District Court 26 for the Southern District of New York 27 _________________ 28

29 Before: CALABRESI, PARK, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges. 30 31 In this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 32 Southern District of New York, we certified a question to the New York Court of 33 Appeals, which it has now answered. In light of that answer, the judgment is 34 affirmed. 35 _____________________________________

1 24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 2 RORY J. BELLANTONI, Brain Injury Rights Group, Ltd, 3 New York, New York, for Plaintiff 4 5 D. ALAN ROSINUS, JR., of Counsel, MURIEL GOODE- 6 TRUFANT, Acting Corporation Counsel of the City of 7 New York, New York, New York, for Defendants 8 _____________________________________ 9 10 PER CURIAM:

11 We return to this appeal from a judgment of the United State District Court

12 for the Southern District of New York (Jennifer L. Rochon, Judge). We assume the

13 parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, set forth in

14 detail in our earlier decision. Cruz v. Banks, 134 F.4th 687 (2d Cir. 2025).

15 On April 15, 2025, we certified a question to the New York State Court of

16 Appeals: “When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under

17 § 200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must

18 be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE

19 may pick?” Id. at 698-99. The Court of Appeals has answered, concluding that the

20 required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 200.6(h)(4) represent

21 alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the

22 described levels of management needs and disabilities. Cruz v. Banks, --- N.E.3d --

2 24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 -, No. 1, 2026 WL 436354, at *4 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2026). In light of that decision,

2 we affirm the judgment of the district court.

3 DISCUSSION

4 “[T]he role of the federal courts in reviewing state educational decisions

5 under the IDEA is circumscribed.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d

6 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation modified). Accordingly, “a court must defer to the

7 SRO’s decision on matters requiring educational expertise unless it concludes that

8 the decision was inadequately reasoned.” R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d

9 167, 189 (2d Cir. 2012).

10 Cruz argues that the June 2021 individualized education program (IEP)

11 placed O.F. in a 12:1:4 classroom in violation of § 200.6(h)(4).

12 But as the Court of Appeals makes clear, “8 NYCRR 200.6(h)(4) provides

13 alternatives.” Cruz, 2026 WL 436354, at *5. As such, “the regulation requires a

14 [committee on special education] to exercise its knowledge and expertise to select

15 the listed alternative that would best serve a student’s individual needs.” Id.

16 Accordingly, because O.F. “has both severe multiple disabilities and highly

17 intensive management needs,” Cruz, 134 F.4th at 694, he could properly be placed

18 in either a 12:1:4 classroom, pursuant to § 200.6(h)(4)(iii), or a 6:1:1 classroom,

3 24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 pursuant to § 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a). His placement in the former did not violate his

2 right to a free appropriate public education.

3 Cruz also argues that even if placement in a 12:1:4 classroom was lawful, the

4 SRO improperly found that the 12:1:4 placement recommended in O.F.’s June 2021

5 IEP would best serve O.F.’s needs.

6 But the SRO reasonably concluded, in agreement with the impartial hearing

7 officer, that placement in a 12:1:4 classroom was appropriate due to O.F.’s need for

8 increased adult support from a variety of professionals and his lack of progress

9 and poor school attendance over the previous year, when he had a 6:1:1 placement.

10 We decline to disturb these findings.

11 In our earlier decision, we considered Cruz’s other arguments and found

12 them to be without merit. We have considered the remaining arguments and also

13 find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

14 AFFIRMED.