McGaw v. Huntington Hosp

4 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Thane S

    158 Misc. 2d 972 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    The courts of this State have long recognized the necessity of providing "related services" to the handicapped child. (See, McGaw v Huntington Hosp., 89 A.D.2d 38.) Likewise, the courts have also long confirmed the legislative policy to extend those services to children even though not of an age which would permit them to attend school. In Matter of David JJ. ( 129 A.D.2d 355, 357-359) Mr. Justice Weiss of the Appellate Division, Third Department, wrote in 1987 in reversing a lower court determination that physical therapy and speech therapy were not "special educational services" in the case of an orthopedically impaired preschooler within the meaning of Family Court Act § 236:

  2. Andree v. County of Nassau

    02-CV-688 (ADS) (ETB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2004)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that DSS's placement of a lien on settlement or personal injury awards received by a disabled student to pay for services that are mandated to be provided free of charge to such students violated the IDEA

    of such funds would decrease [the plaintiff's] settlement amount. If the court were to sustain the lien, [the plaintiff] would (in effect) be forced to pay for the cost of her special education, in contravention of State and Federal law, as evidenced by the fact that she would receive less money for the satisfaction of her lawsuit simply because she is in need of special education."Id. at 5 (concluding that DSS is not entitled to be reimbursed for any sums paid to the Board of Education for the plaintiff's special education since such reimbursement would violate the plaintiff's right to a free appropriate education); see also New York State Educ. Law § 4401(2)(k) (A child with a disability is entitled to, among other things, special services or programs including "[s]pecial classes, transitional support services, resource rooms, direct and indirect consultant teacher services, transition services . . . assistive technology devices . . . travel training [and] home instruction . . ."); McGaw v. Huntington Hosp., 89 A.D.2d 38, 44, 454 N.Y.S.2d 539 (2d Dept 1982) ("It is well established that the burden of providing such educational services falls, not upon the parents or other persons liable for the handicapped child's support, but upon the government, such charge being in the first instance upon the county."). Accordingly, the Court finds that DSS's placement of a lien on settlement or personal injury awards received by a disabled student to pay for services that are mandated to be provided free of charge to such students is a violation of IDEA. See Wise v. Ohio Dept. Of Educ., 863 F. Supp. 570, 574 (N.D. Ohio 1994) ("It is clear that IDEA does not permit a state which receives federal funding to charge the parents or guardians of resident disabled children for the cost of their education.

  3. Fuss v. Niceforo

    244 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    Family Court did not err in dismissing those petitions. There is a guardianship proceeding pending in Surrogate's Court, and that court has concurrent jurisdiction with Family Court ( see, SCPA 1709; McGaw v. Huntington Hosp., 89 A.D.2d 38, 41-42). Petitioner properly notes that the "extraordinary circumstances" test enunciated in Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys ( 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548; see also, Matter of Milligan v. English, 132 A.D.2d 967) must be applied in a custody dispute between a biological parent and a nonparent.

  4. In re David JJ.

    129 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    There is no question that David would be entitled to these services, free of charge, if he were of school age. Handicapped children are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to a free education specially designed to meet their individual needs (NY Const, art XI, § 1; 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; Education Law §§ 4401-4409; see, Matter of Levy, 38 N.Y.2d 653, appeal dismissed 429 U.S. 805; McGaw v Huntington Hosp., 89 A.D.2d 38, 43). The Federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 entitles handicapped children to "a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs" ( 20 U.S.C. § 1400 [c]; emphasis supplied; see, Irving Ind. School Dist. v Tatro, 468 U.S. 883).