"The primary responsibility for determining the manner in which a particular law will affect society is upon the legislative branch and not the judiciary." Finkel v. New York City Board of Education, 474 F. Supp. 468, 471 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), aff'd mem., 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1980). The Supreme Court has articulated the judiciary's role in this regard:
"The primary responsibility for determining the manner in which a particular law will affect society is upon the legislative branch and not the judiciary." Finkel v. New York City Board of Education, 474 F. Supp. 468, 471 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), aff'd mem.; 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1980). The Supreme Court has articulated the judiciary's role in this regard:
In Pratt v Robinson ( 39 NY2d 554), the Court of Appeals construed Education Law ยง 3635 (1) (c) and, in that context, entertained a challenge to, inter alia, the adequacy of a city school district's busing scheme. In so doing, the Court indicated that such a challenge is a proper subject for judicial oversight, notwithstanding the broad discretion entrusted to educational officials in making decisions regarding student transportation ( see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d at 559; see also Matter of Hatch v Board of Educ. Ithaca City School Dist, 81 AD2d 717; Finkel v New York City Bd. of Ed., 474 F Supp 468, 471-472, affd 622 F2d 573 [1980]). As in Pratt v Robinson ( 39 NY2d 554), the gravamen of the petitioners' claim here is that, as a result of the elimination of the variances, the DOE's busing scheme was inadequate.
As a general rule, the board does not exercise any discretion in deciding whether they should receive these services. To the extent a school district makes these services available, it must make them available on an equal basis to all students (see, Finkel v New York City Board of Education, 474 F. Supp. 468 [DC, EDNY, 1979], affd 622 F.2d 573 [2d Cir, 1980]).