Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education

S.D. New York

Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 28, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-02590·Unknown

Opinion

USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5-28-20

MARIA HIDALGO AND ABUNDIO SANCHEZ, individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S., Plaintiffs, No. 19-CV-2590 (RA) v. ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: No later than June 1, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a letter advising the Court whether they withdraw their motion for reconsideration in light of the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education that parents were not entitled to pendency funding when they unilaterally moved their children from iHope to iBrain because “‘it is the City, not the Parents, that is authorized to decide how (and where) the Students’ pendency services are to be provided.” No. 19-1662-CV, 2020 WL 2516650, at *10 (2d Cir. May 18, 2020). In the event that Plaintiffs do not intend to withdraw their motion, they shall explain why the Second Circuit’ decision in Ventura de Paulino does not control in this action.

Dated: May 28, 2020 yp, New York, New York ko L646 = Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5-28-20

MARIA HIDALGO AND ABUNDIO SANCHEZ, individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S., Plaintiffs, No. 19-CV-2590 (RA) v. ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: No later than June 1, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a letter advising the Court whether they withdraw their motion for reconsideration in light of the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education that parents were not entitled to pendency funding when they unilaterally moved their children from iHope to iBrain because “‘it is the City, not the Parents, that is authorized to decide how (and where) the Students’ pendency services are to be provided.” No. 19-1662-CV, 2020 WL 2516650, at *10 (2d Cir. May 18, 2020). In the event that Plaintiffs do not intend to withdraw their motion, they shall explain why the Second Circuit’ decision in Ventura de Paulino does not control in this action.

Dated: May 28, 2020 yp, New York, New York ko L646 = Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education (Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.