18 Cited authorities

  1. Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A.

    557 U.S. 230 (2009)   Cited 385 times
    Holding these provisions give courts "discretion to reduce the amount of a reimbursement award if the equities so warrant"
  2. John v. Portville Central Sch. Dist

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2645 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 62 times
    Instructing courts to read contracts as a whole and not place “undue emphasis” upon particular words or phrases
  3. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8630 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 60 times
    Observing that three alternative student performance criteria were included in choosing the qualifying schools in the successful schools model
  4. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. Tom F. ex rel. Gilbert F.

    552 U.S. 1 (2007)   Cited 2 times
    In Jointer v. United States, 552 U.S. 1o90, 128 S. Ct. 855 (2008), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Jointer's case to the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L. Ed.2d 481 (2007).
  5. In re Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 885 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 17 times

    2013-02-12 In the Matter of the Arbitration between SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Local 864, et al., Respondents. Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Beth A. Bourassa of counsel), for appellant. Daren J. Rylewicz, Albany, for respondents. Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Beth A. Bourassa of counsel), for appellant. Daren J. Rylewicz, Albany, for respondents. Jay Worona, Latham

  6. East Meadow Union Free School District v. New York State Division of Human Rights

    65 A.D.3d 1342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In East Meadow, the Second Department found that a school district is not an “ ‘[e]ducation corporation or association’ within the meaning of Executive Law § 296(4)” (East Meadow, 65 A.D.2d at 1344).
  7. N. Syracuse Cent. Sch. Dist. v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4668 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 15 times

    2012-06-12 In the Matter of NORTH SYRACUSE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent. In the Matter of Ithaca City School District, Appellant, v. New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents. Law Firm of Frank W. Miller, East Syracuse (Frank W. Miller and Bryan Georgiady of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Jonathan B. Fellows of counsel), for appellant in the second

  8. Marino v. City of New York

    95 A.D.3d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 15 times

    2012-05-1 Alice MARINO, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. Slater & Sgarlato, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert A. Sgarlato and Thomas J. Cappello of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondents. PETER B. SKELOS Slater & Sgarlato, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert A. Sgarlato and Thomas J. Cappello of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation

  9. In re Binghamton City School District

    33 A.D.3d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    In Binghamton, the Third Department correctly noted, I believe, that a court's authority to overturn an arbitration award based on public policy grounds includes the state's compelling interest in protecting our children.
  10. In re Board of Educ

    72 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 16 times

    No. 2009-01587. April 13, 2010. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 and Education Law § 3020-a to vacate a determination of a hearing officer dated March 18, 2008, which, after a hearing, dismissed disciplinary charges against the respondent, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated January 2, 2009, which denied the petition, confirmed the determination, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Shaw, Perelson, May Lambert, LLP