Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-06623
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Near”

THE CITY OF NEW YORE LAW DEPARTMENT GOODE-TRUFANT 100 CHURCH STREET Madison Moore Counsel NEW YORK, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 356-2097 madmoore@law.nyc.gov

November 5, 2025 VIA ECF . oe : _ Honorable John G. Koeltl jy Sabo United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan 7 Atbech-Le RPE United States Courthouse Me / 9. a 500 Pearl St. ( i / [al7> New York, NY 10007-1312 Ly Clerc 6/Gelee Re: Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education, et’ al.c¢- Pp - >, Case No: 25-cv-6623-JGK. ud s/ 2387 Dear Judge Koeltl: Iam an Assistant Corporation Counsel representing the New York City Department of Education and Maria Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity (Collectively “Defendants” in the above-referenced action. I write jointly with Plaintiff’s counsel, Rory J. Bellantoni, Esq., to provide the Court with the Parties’ positions regarding the initial pre-trial conference (“IPTC”) scheduled for Wednesday, Nqvember 12, 2025, af 2:30 P.M. As further explained below, the Parties respectfully request that the IPTC be adjourned sine die. As this matter is an appeal of an administrative decision centered on whether the Plaintiffs’ claims for the 2019-2020 school year are time-barred by the statute of limitations and whether Defendants owed Plaintiffs a free and appropriate education (““FAPE”) for the 2023-2024 school year, the Parties agree that an IPTC and/or mediation would be unnecessary. The Parties believe this matter can be resolved through motions for summary judgment based upon the certified administrative record. Both parties have received a copy of the certified record. In light of the foregoing, the Parties propose the following briefing schedule for the Parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. January 12, 2026: Plaintiffs to file their motion for summary judgment;

March 12, 2026: Defendants to file their cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; April 10, 2026: Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion and reply. May 11, 2026: Defendants to file their reply in further support of its cross-motion, if any. Please also find attached hereto the Parties’ Joint Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Kindly note that the Parties agree that no formal discovery is required beyond filing the certified administrative record. Moreover, it is also respectfully submitted that because the inquiry here is not whether there are disputed issues of fact, the Rule 56.1 statements should be waived. While in IDEA actions, “the parties and the court typically style the decision as a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, [] ‘the procedure is in substance an appeal from an administrative decision, not a summary judgment motion.’” Bd. Of Educ. v. C.S., 990 F.3d 156, 165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting MH. v N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 226 (2d Cir. 2012). Because the Parties’ motions will be based solely on the administrative record, the Parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court waive the submission of 56.1 statements. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours, Madison WU. Moore Madison M. Moore Assistant Corporation Counsel Counsel for the Defendants cc: Plaintiffs’ counsel (via ECF)