IntegrateN.Y.C. Inc. v. State

Full title: INTEGRATENYC INC., COALITION FOR EDUCATIONAL JUSTICE, P.S. 132 PARENTS FOR…

Court: Supreme Court, New York County

Date published: May 25, 2022

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34736 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

Opinion

Index No. 152743/2021 Motion Seq. Nos. 012 013 014 015

05-25-2022

INTEGRATENYC INC., COALITION FOR EDUCATIONAL JUSTICE, P.S. 132 PARENTS FOR CHANGE, A. C., H. D., M. G., L. S., C. H., Y. J., A. M., V. M., M. A., S. S., S. D., K. T., S. W., Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, KATHY HOCHUL, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BETTY ROSA, BILL DE BLASIO, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MEISHA PORTER, PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION, Defendant.

HON. FRANK NERVO, J.S.C.

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATES: 08/23/2021, 08/24/2021, 09/13/2021, 12/15/2021

PRESENT: HON. FRANK NERVO Justice

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

HON. FRANK NERVO, J.S.C.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 138, 163, 173, 184 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 164, 174, 187, 188 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 175, 182, 185 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 015) 178, 179, 180, 181, 186 were read on this motion to/for LEAVE TO FILE.

The above motions are consolidated for the purposes of disposition as they either seek related relief or are rendered academic by the instant decision and order.

It is beyond cavil that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and that the petition improperly seeks, inter alia, this Court to make educational policy by directing respondents take certain actions regarding curriculum content, testing content, employment diversity, employment policies, admission policies, and disciplinary policies, among others (see e.g. Bd. of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v. Nyquist, 57 N.Y.2d 27 [1982]; Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., v. State, 8 N.Y.3d 14 [2006]; Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 87 A.D.3d 311 [1^st Dept 2011]). The legislature, not the judiciary, is the proper branch of government to hear petitioners' prayers (id.; see also Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 535 [1984]). "Simply put, when the courts review the acts of the Legislature and the Executive, we do so to protect rights, not to make policy" (Roberts v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 87 A.D.3d at 325 [internal citations omitted]). The petition improperly seeks this Court to make education policy and, therefore, presents a nonjusticiable controversy.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the petition is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the matter is marked disposed; and it is further

ORDERED that the remaining relief is denied as academic in light of the dismissal of the action.