Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 F.3d 687

Docket No. 274, Docket 95-7151.

Hope v. Cortines

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 13, 1995.

Decided Nov. 8, 1995.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-11-08

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA,”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Polera v. Board Of Ed. Of N'burgh City Sch. District, Polera v. Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District

“to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lawton v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc.

Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

Relies on Hope v. Cortines

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-11-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Taylor v. Vermont Department of Education (2002), Polera v. Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District (2002)

15 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

330199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*688Loren Baily, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶2Jane L. Gordon, New York City (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Barry P. Schwartz, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

¶3Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

¶4JON 0. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

¶5Plaintiffs-appellants Moyo Hope, a sixteen year-old minor, and his parents appeal from the January 9, 1995, judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, Judge) dismissing their lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101et. seq. (Supp. V 1993), against the Board of Education of the City of New York and its Chancellor. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability and race by refusing to provide appropriate educational services to Moyo, a child who is both gifted and afflicted with dyslexia. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ ADA claim, as well as other claims not pursued on appeal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400et. seq. (Supp. V 1993). Plaintiffs ask this Court to vacate the dismissal of the ADA claim and return the case to the District Court.

¶6In a thorough, thoughtful opinion, the District Court explained why claims asserted under the ADA are subject to the IDEA’S requirement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f), that litigants exhaust the IDEA’S administrative procedures before bringing suit under the ADA to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA. Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y.1995). The District Court also determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA, and that plaintiffs’ claims do not fall within any of the exceptions to the IDEA’S exhaustion requirement. Id. at 21-23. We affirm on the opinion of the District Court.

/69/f3d/687 · .json · Public domain