Education

When a client contacts us about a disciplinary issue stemming from alleged violations at a university or graduate program – the first thing that we will want to review is something called the code of conduct.  The code of conduct is a handbook that discusses the school’s policies and procedures.  It also provides for the procedural rights of the student, while protecting the community at large.

By reviewing and interpreting the provisions of the code of conduct, a student will be able to gather information concerning all of the student’s rights and obligations with respect to the formal charges that they may be facing.  Our team of attorneys strongly recommend that any student being charged with a violation of the code of conduct immediately contact an attorney before attending a meeting at the university.

After reviewing the charges, we will work directly with the student by reviewing the evidence produced by the university and the student file, including all documents and records.  This allows for our Long Island university attorneys and the student to prepare a defense at an administrative or student board hearing on the pending charges.  Our work at this level will generally include the review of documents, the drafting of a written statement on behalf of the student, as well as, preparing for a direct and cross-examination of the accuser or other witnesses.  We will help the student interpret the charges to ensure that he/she obtains the best result. Following a decision letter from the school, if necessary we will also help the student appeal any of the sanctions imposed, by drafting and formulating a written appeal.

We have found our involvement with the student by representing them at all levels of the disciplinary proceeding helps streamline the issues and ensure that the most favorable result is obtained.

We are students of the law.

We understand how frustrating it can be when you are forced to deal with an administrative faculty that appears to have an agenda.

By contacting our New York education attorneys we will work with you through these tough times, while providing the support that you deserve.

In an issue of first impression, the Family Court, Kings County, held that children’s report cards and teacher comments are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court considered many factors in its decision and also into consideration that a child’s academic and social progress in school and the relative capacity of each parent to foster the child’s intellectual development are often major considerations in custody disputes, and evidence bearing on those issues is certainly relevant.

 The Court reasoned that before business records may be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must establish specific foundational facts: (1) that the record be made in the regular course of business—essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business, (2) that it be the regular course of such business to make the record, in other words, a double requirement of regularity—essentially, that the record be made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record, and (3) that the record be made at or about the time of the event being recorded—essentially, that recollection be fairly accurate and the habit or routine of making the entries assured.

 The Court concluded that while recording teacher grades and comments may be part of the business of a school, the grades and comments themselves are clearly hearsay and do not constitute an “act, transaction, occurrence or event,” within meaning of business records exception to hearsay rule; but rather, they are expressions of the subjective judgments of the teacher who determines or authors them, formulated over a period of time, and based on any number of factors.

The  Campaign for Fiscal Equity  (C.F.E.) is an advocacy organization whose victory in a historic lawsuit in 2006 brought billions in additional funding to poor school districts in New York State.  The future of the C.F.E. is now uncertain, as they no longer have sufficient funding to continue operations.  The lack of funding reflects the emerging trend amongst donors away from the traditional legal battle over equality between poor and wealthy school districts.  Many donors have turned their focus to new ideas, such as research into teacher effectiveness and charter schools.

In 2006, after 13 years of litigation, C.F.E.’s victorious lawsuit resulted in Governor Elliot Spitzer pledging to phase in $7 billion in additional funding over five years, beginning in 2007.  Garden City alone was to receive $5.4 billion.  However, after the economic downturn two years later in 2009, the New York Legislature froze the additional aid at the prior year’s level.  Subsequently, in 2011, an overall $1.3 billion reduction in education aid brought school financing levels roughly back to the levels prior to the C.F.E. lawsuit.  For example, Garden City is set to receive $643 million in C.F.E. funds in 2012 from the state, but the overall cut in state aid is $812 million.  According to the city’s Department of Education, the result is an overall net decrease in funding. 

 C.F.E. is currently contemplating a merger with the Education Law Center, a New Jersey-based advocacy organization that recently won a $500 million judgment in a school-financing lawsuit.  The Education Law Center shares the same mission as C.F.E. of ensuring that “students in poor school districts are not deprived of their constitutional right to a sound basic education.”

In New York, it is well settled law that a school district is under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and that it will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.  However, the school district is not an insurer of safety. It cannot be reasonably expected to continuously supervise and control all activities of its students. In fact, a district will not be held liable for every act in which one student may injure another. Despite this, when determining whether a duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached by the school district, a claimant must show that school authorities had sufficient specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated. As a result, a claimant will be required to show that the school had actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct by the endangering student so that school personal should have been on guard for the claimed conduct. Going even further, even if the duty to supervise is breached then a claimant must still show that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. Therefore, before deciding whether to file a lawsuit against a school district you should speak with an attorney to conduct the required analysis and ensure that you meet all statutory filing requirements.

If you have an educational issue in New York and need legal representation then please contact the New York education attorneys at Bashian & Papantoniou.