|
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY
______________________________________________________
NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF SMALL CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, Inc., and THE MEMBERS OF THE
BOARDS OF EDUCATION OF THE ALBANY CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, EDWARD BROWN, SUSAN
KUSHNER, WILLIAM BARNETTE, PATRICIA FAHY,
TENEKA FROST, BARBARA GAFFURI, OF THE
BEACON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEBORAH SHEERS,
WILLIAM ZOPF, ALYSON CHUGERMAN, CYNTHIA
AMENDED
GRIFFIN, CARLA PETTOROSSI, DONNA PINEIRO,
COMPLAINT FOR
MICHAEL RIEHL, MARK SEEGLER,
MARY-BETH DECLARATORY
STEPHENS, OF THE BINGHAMTON CITY SCHOOL
AND INJUNCTIVE
DISTRICT, BRIAN WHALEN, JOAN PURTELL, SANDRA
RELIEF
HAINING, MAURA KAMMERMAN, DAVID HAWLEY,
MICHAEL O’CONNELL, PATRICIA SCHWARTZ, OF THE COHOES
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, CHRISTOPHER BRIGGS,
JEFF BRADT, PATRICK BUTLER, ANNE MARIE HUME,
WALTER KOLAKOWSKI, STEVE
LACKMANN, V. MARK RJI No. 01-05-081545
PASCALE, OF THE CORNING CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Index No. 1711-05
WILLIAM E. CARLSON, JUDITH DWYER, REBECCA W.,
BAKER, NEIL F. BULKLEY, KIM L. CLARK, PATRICK H. FLYNN,
NANCY MCLAUGHLIN, MARK D. VAUGHN, DALE R.
WEXELL, OF THE DUNKIRK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
NANCY RENCKENS, ROSE M. FLORAMO, KENNETH
KOZLOWSKI, THOMAS BORIS, RONALD HALL, TOMMY
ROQUE, GREGORY SEK, OF THE GLENS FALLS CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANE R. REID, ANNE B. HERLIHY,
TODD R. FEIGENBAUM, JEFFREY S. GOHN, KRISTINE
HATCH, SANDRA HUTCHINSON, BARBARA G. KROGMANN,
WILLIAM P. MASON, DEVIN R. SPENCER, OF THE JAMESTOWN
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSEPH PAWELSKI, TIMOTHY
THOMAS, JOSEPH DIMAIO, LARUEL LUCAS, DEANN NELSON,
THOMAS POPE, CHRISTINE SCHNARS, OF THE KINGSTON
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DANIEL GARTENSTEIN,
CHRISTOPHER FARRELL, MARUEEN BOWERS, A.L. COSTON, SR.,
DAVID FLETCHER, KATHY GERMAIN, IAN HOROWITZ, CLAYTON
VANKLEECK, MARC TACK, GERARD M.
GRETZINGER, CAMILLE ELLSWORTH, OF THE MIDDLETOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
VINCENT CRESCENZO, SUSAN BOTTI, WILLIAM A. BEST, EDWIN
ESTRADA, WILLIAM GEIGER, LINDA KNAPP, LYNNE PERKINS,
JOHN A. PERRINO, ROSE TOBIASSEN, OF THE MT.VERNON CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, DONNA SCOTT, KATHY SHERMAN, MARGIE
BENNETT, SAMUEL R. LAUDEMAN, JR., CHARLES WAUGH, OF THE
NEWBURGH
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RUNSTON T. LEWIS, RALPH A. PIZZO, GRACE BOWLES,
THOMAS J. FITZGERALD, DAWN FUCHECK, EDWARD POPPITI, DAVID
J. REIN, PAMELA R.
RESCH, THOMAS C. WOODHULL, OF THE NIAGARA FALLS CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, RUSSELL
PETROZZI, ROBERT KAZEANGIN, JR., CHRISTOPHER BROWN, KEVIN
DOBBS, DON J. KING,
CARMELETTE ROTELLA, JEANETTE STYPA, NICHOLAS VILARDO, MARK
ZITO, OF THE NORTH
TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ARTHUR PAPPAS, SCOTT
SCHULTZ, ROBERT ARBEITER,
NANCY DONOVAN, MICHAEL HARMS, DENNIS PASIAK, DEBORAH
WASIECZKO, OF
THE POUGHKEEPSIE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, STANLEY F. MERRITT,
CAROL A. BOGLE,
GREGORY S. CHARTER, THOMAS L. JEFFERSON, ELLEN W. STAINO,
OF THE SALAMANCA
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, THOMAS HART, CANDACE COOPER, ROBERT
CRANDALL,
AARON MINNER, ANN O’BRIEN, PATRICK WELCH, RALPH RIGGS, OF
THE SCHENECTADY
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JEFF JANISZEWSKI, WARREN R. SNYDER,
LINDA BELLICK, JAMES CASINO,
JOHN MITCHELL, CHAUNCEY WILLIAMS, LISA RUSSO, and OF THE
TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, GARY WATERHOUSE, DANIEL CALABRESE, RICHARD
CATLIN, JOYCE HOGENKAMP,
THOMAS BALK, MARK FLINT, JAMES WEBER, in their official,
individual and citizen-taxpayer capacities, and
AYUBE HUSSEIN, JABIR HUSSEIN, JEFFERY F. HORNE, NICHOLAS L.
HORNE, MARY FRANCIS MAISTO, STEVEN MAISTO, ELIZABETH STOCUM, KATELYN ELIZABETH
STOCUM, JAMES ROBERT STOCUM, MARK PANEBIANCO, JENNIFER PANEBIANCO, ZACHARY
PANEBIANCO, TOM POPE, TAMSIN POPE, BRANDON POPE, CHRISTOPHER POPE, MARISA POPE,
GRACE JOHNSON, GREGORY JOHNSON, ABIGAIL JOHNSON, MARIA PETERSON, DAVID PETERSON,
LINDSEY PETERSON, LORI COBB, LOU COBB,FLETCHER COBB-SEK, ED POPPITI, EDWARD
POPPITI, DAWN FUCHECK, RYAN FUCHECK, ALEXI FUCHECK, BRETT FUCHECK, PAMELA R.
RESCH, DARRI T. RESCH, COLLIN N. RESCH, ROBIN JOHNSON, JAMIE JOHNSON, SAMANTHA
JOHNSON, LINDSAY JOHNSON, ALYSON CHEYERMA, HAYLEE CHEYERMA, AUBREY CHEYERMA,
WILLIAM P. ZOPF, JACQUELINE ZOPF, REBECCA ZOPF, LARRY D. COHEN, SARAH REBECCA
COHEN, MARY MELLISA COHEN, DEBORAH M. SHEERS, MARY JO BOUDINOT, DONNA PINEIRO,
NOEL PINEIRO, LIAM PINEIRO, CYNTHIA GRIFFIN, JAMIR GRIFFIN, JULIE K.
RODRIGUEZ,DOMINICK RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLE RODRIGUEZ, BARBARA RACHELL, BRADLEY
RACHELL, ALMETRA MURDOCK, ANGEL MURDOCK, ARIEL MURDOCK, SHARON CURRIE, VANEISHA
CURRIE, LAMAR CURRIE, ANTON CURRIE, JAEKWON MYERS, LEONA M. FREE, OMANI FREE,
TAMARA GEZMAN, ZSA ZSA HOLMES, RAYSHON HOLMES, KRISTLA HOLMES, DONTA HOLMES,
MAURICE WALTER, JZAMAINO MORRIS, TANISHA JACKSON, IVAN JACKSON, ANAYA JACKSON,
JAYLEN JACKSON, TONIA PARKER, BEVERLY WEBLEY, BEVON WEBLEY, TANTANEYAS OWENS,
ELIZABETH ROBINSON, STARDAYSHA ROBINSON, OBIE ROBINSON, NELLIE STEWART, TYRON
STEWART, DAAWADA STEWART, DAYTON STEWART, in their official, individual, parent
and citizen-taxpayer capacities.
Plaintiffs,
-against-
STATE OF NEW YORK, GEORGE E. PATAKI, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, and ANDREW S. ERISTOFF, COMMISSONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION
AND FINANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs, New York State Association of Small City
School Districts, Inc., and the Members of the Boards of Education, of the
Albany City School District, Edward Brown, Susan Kushner, William Barnette,
Patricia Fahy, Teneka Frost, Barbara Gaffuri, of the Beacon City School
District, Deborah Sheers, William Zopf, Alyson Chugerman, Cynthia Griffin, Carla
Pettorossi, Donna Pineiro, Michael Riehl, Mark Seegler, Mary-Beth Stephens, of
the Binghamton City School District, Brian Whalen, Joan Purtell, Valerie
Hampton, Maura Kammerman, David Hawley, Michael O’Connell, Patricia Schwartz, of
the Cohoes City School District, Christopher Briggs, Jeff Bradt, Patrick Butler,
Anne Marie Hume, Walter Kolakowski, Steven Lackmann, V. Mark Pascale, Corning
City School District, William E. Carlson, Judith Dwyer, Rebecca W. Baker, Neil
F. Bulkley, Kim L. Clark, Patrick H. Flynn, Nancy McLaughlin, Mark D. Vaughn,
Dale R. Wexell, of the Dunkirk City School District, Nancy Renckens, Rose M.
Floramo, Kenneth Kozlowski, Thomas Boris, Ronald Hall, Tommy Roque, Gregory Sek,
of the Glens Falls City School District, Jane R. Reid, Anne B. Herlihy, Todd R.
Feigenbaum, Jeffrey S. Gohn, Kristine Hatch, Sandra Hutchinson, Barbara G.
Drogmann, William P. Mason, Devin R. Spencer, of the Jamestown City School
District, Joseph Pawelski, Timothy Thomas, Joseph DiMaio, Laurel Lucas, Deann
Nelson, Thomas Pope, Christine Schnars, of the Kingston City School District,
Daniel Gartenstein, Christopher Farrell, Maureen Bowers, A.L. Coston, Sr., David
Fletcher, Kathy Germain, Ian Horowitz, Clayton Vankleeck, Marc Tack, Gerard M.
Gretzinger, Camile Ellsworth, of the Middletown City School District, Vincent
Crescenzo, Susan Botti, William A. Best, Edwin Estrada, William Geiger, Linda
Knapp, Lynne Perkins, John A. Perrino, Rose Tobiassen, of the Mt. Vernon City
School District, Donna Scott, Kathy Sherman, Margie Bennett, Samuel R. Laudeman,
Jr., Charles Waugh, of the Newburgh City School District, Runston T. Lewis,
Ralph A. Pizzo, Grace Bowles, Thomas J. Fitzgerald, Dawn Fucheck, Edward Poppiti,
David J. Rein, Pamela R. Resch, Thomas C. Woodhull, of the Niagara Falls City
School District, Russell Petrozzi, Robert Kazeangin, Jr., Christopher Brown,
Kevin Dobbs, Don J. King, Carmelette Rotella, Jeanette Stypa, Nicholas Vilardo,
Mark Zito, of the North Tonawanda City School District, Arthur Pappas, Scott
Schultz, Robert Arbeiter, Nancy Donovan, Michael Harms, Dennis Pasiak, Deborah
Wasieczko, of the Poughkeepsie City School District, Stanley F. Merritt, Carol
A. Bogle, Gregory S. Charter, Thomas L. Jefferson, Ellen W. Staino, of the
Salamanca City School District, Thomas Hart, Candace Cooper, Robert Crandall,
Aaron Minner, Ann O’Brien, Patrick Welch, Ralph Riggs, of the Schenectady City
School District Jeff Janiszewski, Warren R. Snyder, Linda Bellick, James Casino,
John Mitchell, Chauncey Williams, Lisa Russo and of the Tonawanda City School
District, Gary Waterhouse, Daniel Calabrese, Richard Catlin, Joyce Hogenkamp,
Thomas Balk, Mark Flint, James Weber in their official, individual and citizen
taxpayer capacities, Ayube Hussein, Jabir Hussein, Jeffery F. Horne, Nicholas L.
Horne, Mary Francis Maisto, Steven Maisto, Elizabeth Stocum, Katelyn Elizabeth
Stocum, James Robert Stocum, Mark Panebianco, Jennifer Panebianco, Zachary
Panebianco, Tom Pope, Tamsin Pope, Brandon Pope, Christopher Pope, Marisa Pope,
Grace Johnson, Gregory Johnson, Abigail Johnson, Maria Peterson, David Peterson,
Lindsey Peterson, Lori Cobb, Lou Cobb, Fletcher Cobb-Sek, Edward Poppiti, Ed
Poppiti, Dawn Fucheck, Ryan Fucheck, Alexi Fucheck, Brett Fucheck, Pamela R.
Resch, Darri T. Resch, Collin N. Resch, Robin Johnson, Jamie Johnson, Samantha
Johnson, Lindsay Johnson, Alyson Cheyerma, Haylee Cheyerma, Aubrey Cheyerma,
William P. Zopf, Jacqueline Zopf, Rebecca Zopf, Larry D. Cohen, Sarah Rebecca
Cohen, Mary Melissa Cohen, Deborah M. Sheers, Mary Jo Boudinot, Donna Pineiro,
Noel Pineiro, Liam Pineiro, Cynthia Griffin, Jamir Griffin, Julie K. Rodriquez,
Dominick Rodriguez, Nichole Rodriguez, Barbara Rachell, Bradley Rachell, Almetra
Murdock, Angel Murdock, Ariel Murdock, Sharon Currie, Vaneisha Currie, Lamar
Currie, Anton Currie, Jaekwon Myers, Leona M. Free, Omani Free, Tamara Gezman,
Zsa Zsa Holmes, Rayshon Holmes, Kristla Holmes, Donta Holmes, Maurice Walker,
Jzamaino Morris, Tanisha Jackson, Ivan Jackson, Anaya Jackson, Jaylen Jackson,
Tonia Parker, Beverly Webley, Bevon Webley, Tantaneyas Owens, Elizabeth
Robinson, Stardaysha Robinson, Obie Robinson, Nellie Stewart, Tryon Stewart,
Daawada Stewart, Dayton Stewart, by their attorneys, as and for their Complaint
against defendants State of New York, George E. Pataki, Governor of the State of
New York and Andrew S. Eristoff, Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and
Finance of the State of New York allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
1.
This suit challenges the constitutionality, in whole or in part, of the system
of education funding provided by defendants to the: Albany City School District,
Beacon City School District, Binghamton City School District , Cohoes City
School District, Corning City School District, Dunkirk City School District ,
Glens Falls City School District, Jamestown City School District Kingston City
School District, Middletown City School District, Mt. Vernon City School
District, Newburgh City School District, Niagara Falls City School District,
North Tonawanda City School District, Poughkeepsie City School District
Salamanca City School District, Schenectady City School District and Tonawanda
City School District, (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs’ Districts").
2. In
1995 and 2003 the New York State Court of Appeals issued two decisions in
Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al. v. New York State et al. (CFE I [86
N.Y.2d 307] and CFE II [100 N.Y.2d 893], respectively) setting forth
a definition of what constitutes the sound basic education required under New
York State Constitution Article XI, section 1. The Court established a basis on
which the educational funding system as it relates to all public school
districts in the state must be measured. The Court required a review of
educational inputs and outputs to determine whether or not the system provided
an opportunity for all children to obtain a meaningful high school education. It
then placed the responsibility of maintaining a funding system to provide that
opportunity squarely on the state’s shoulders.
3. A
review of the educational resources (“inputs”) provided to children attending
Plaintiffs’ Districts shows that those resources are grossly inadequate to the
task of providing all of the children in those Districts with a meaningful
opportunity at succeeding in school and obtaining a meaningful high school
education, i.e. the opportunity to receive a sound basic education. Educational
inputs necessary for a sound basic education include sufficient numbers of
qualified, experienced teachers, well maintained facilities of adequate size and
function and instrumentalities of learning, up to date and sufficient in amount
to support essential programs, among other things. This gross inadequacy in
inputs, or “opportunity gap,” is the direct result of the educational funding
system maintained by the state, a system which permits the Plaintiffs’
Districts, which are poorer than the average school district and significantly
poorer than non-city districts, to spend much less per pupil than non-city
districts while taxing their local property tax payers at extremely high rates.
4. A
review of the educational performance (“outputs”) of students attending
Plaintiffs’ Districts including but not limited to graduation rates, dropout
rates, rates of those entering college and results on the 4th and 8th
grade English and Math tests and on the Regents tests now required for high
school graduation among other indicators shows results which are below the
results of the average district state wide and which are far below the results
of non-city districts. Moreover, the results of the Plaintiffs’ Districts for
children in certain sub-groups such as the economically disadvantaged, children
with disabilities and ethnic/racial minorities are abysmally low and as such are
comparable to results of children in other poor districts throughout the state
including New York City. These chronically poor results which demonstrate the
failure to obtain a sound basic education are the direct consequence of the
failure of the state to provide educational funding for Plaintiffs’ Districts
which meets the constitutional parameters set by the Court of Appeals.
VENUE
5.
Venue is proper in the County of Albany pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and
Rules (“CPLR”) 503(a) because defendants principal offices are
located in the County of Albany.
PLAINTIFFS
6.
Plaintiff New York State Association of Small City School Districts is a
not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York State, with
having its principal place of business in Albany County. Its membership
consists of small city school districts (including Plaintiffs' Districts),
represented by members of boards of education and superintendents. The
fifty-seven small city school districts are located in all the cities of the
state, excluding the five largest cities, New York, Yonkers, Syracuse, Rochester
and Buffalo, and are governed by New York Education Law, Articles 51 and 53.
7.
Plaintiffs, members of the boards of education of the Albany City School
District, Edward Brown, Susan Kushner, William Barnette, Patricia Fahy, Teneka
Frost, Barbara Gaffuri, of the Beacon City School District, Deborah Sheers,
William Zopf, Alyson Chugerman, Cynthia Griffin, Carla Pettorossi, Donna Pineiro,
Michael Riehl, Mark Seegler, Mary-Beth Stephens, of the Binghamton City School
District, Brian Whalen, Joan Purtell, Valerie Hampton, Maura Kammerman, David
Hawley, Michael O’Connell, Patricia Schwartz, of the Cohoes City School
District, Christopher Briggs, Jeff Bradt, Patrick Butler, Anne Marie Hume,
Walter Kolakowski, Steven Lackmann, V. Mark Pascale, Corning City School
District, William E. Carlson, Judith Dwyer, Rebecca W. Baker, Neil F. Bulkley,
Kim L. Clark, Patrick H. Flynn, Nancy McLaughlin, Mark D. Vaughn, Dale R. Wexell,
of the Dunkirk City School District, Nancy Renckens, Rose M. Floramo, Kenneth
Kozlowski, Thomas Boris, Ronald Hall, Tommy Roque, Gregory Sek, of the Glens
Falls City School District, Jane R. Reid, Anne B. Herlihy, Todd R. Feigenbaum,
Jeffrey S. Gohn, Kristine Hatch, Sandra Hutchinson, Barbara G. Drogmann, William
P. Mason, Devin R. Spencer, of the Jamestown City School District, Joseph
Pawelski, Timothy Thomas, Joseph DiMaio, Laurel Lucas, Deann Nelson, Thomas
Pope, Christine Schnars, of the Kingston City School District, Daniel
Gartenstein, Christopher Farrell, Maureen Bowers, A.L. Coston, Sr., David
Fletcher, Kathy Germain, Ian Horowitz, Clayton Vankleeck, Marc Tack, Gerard M.
Gretzinger, Camile Ellsworth, of the Middletown City School District, Vincent
Crescenzo, Susan Botti, William A. Best, Edwin Estrada, William Geiger, Linda
Knapp, Lynne Perkins, John A. Perrino, Rose Tobiassen, of the Mt. Vernon City
School District, Donna Scott, Kathy Sherman, Margie Bennett, Samuel R. Laudeman,
Jr., Charles Waugh, of the Newburgh City School District, Runston T. Lewis,
Ralph A. Pizzo, Grace Bowles, Thomas J. Fitzgerald, Dawn Fucheck, Edward Poppiti,
David J. Rein, Pamela R. Resch, Thomas C. Woodhull, of the Niagara Falls City
School District, Russell Petrozzi, Robert Kazeangin, Jr., Christopher Brown,
Kevin Dobbs, Don J. King, Carmelette Rotella, Jeanette Stypa, Nicholas Vilardo,
Mark Zito, of the North Tonawanda City School District, Arthur Pappas, Scott
Schultz, Robert Arbeiter, Nancy Donovan, Michael Harms, Dennis Pasiak, Deborah
Wasieczko, of the Poughkeepsie City School District, Stanley F. Merritt, Carol
A. Bogle, Gregory S. Charter, Thomas L. Jefferson, Ellen W. Staino, of the
Salamanca City School District, Thomas Hart, Candace Cooper, Robert Crandall,
Aaron Minner, Ann O’Brien, Patrick Welch, Ralph Riggs, of the Schenectady City
School District, Jeff Janiszewski, Warren R. Snyder, Linda Bellick, James
Casino, John Mitchell, Chauncey Williams, Lisa Russo and of the Tonawanda City
School District, Gary Waterhouse, Daniel Calabrese, Richard Catlin, Joyce
Hogenkamp, Thomas Balk, Mark Flint, James Weber, maintain suit against
defendants in their official, individual and citizen taxpayer capacities.
8.
Plaintiffs’ Districts serve approximately 106,000 urban children in New York
State (see, New York: The State of Learning (July 2004) Vol. 2,
(hereinafter Statistical Profiles),at Table 1). They are either
co-terminus or inclusive of cities in the State that have populations of fewer
than 125,000 (see, N.Y. Educ. Law §2601).
9. The State Education Department has characterized many of
Plaintiffs’ Districts as high need/low resource districts, i.e., as shown by
high poverty and low combined wealth ratio (see, Statistical Profiles
at Table 1). They have higher percentages of poor and minority students
than their non-city counterparts; higher percentages of children with special
educational needs and of children on the free and reduced price lunch program;
and higher percentages of dropouts and children at risk (see,
Statistical Profiles at Table 1).
10. Plaintiffs' Districts are fiscally independent of the city
in which they are located (Chapter 762 of the Laws of 1950). The financial base
of these districts is provided primarily by a combination of local revenues from
real property and non-property school taxes, state aid and federal aid.
11. Ayube
Hussein sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor
child, Jabin Hussein, a student who attends Albany City School District. Jeffery
F. Horne, sues on his own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of his minor
child, Nicholas L. Horne, a student who attends Albany City School District.
Mary Francis Maisto, sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of
her minor child, Steven Maisto, a student who attends Jamestown City School
District. Elizabeth Stocum, sues on her own behalf as citzen-taxpayer and on
behalf of her minor children, Katelyn Elizabeth Stocum, and James Robert Stocum,
students who attends Jamestown City School District. Mark Panebianco and
Jennifer Panebianco, sue on their own behalf as citizens-taxpayers and on behalf
of their minor child, Zachary Panebianco, a student who attends Jamestown City
School District. Tom Pope and Tamsin Pope, sue on their own behalf as
citizens-taxpayers and on behalf of their minor children, Brandon Pope,
Christopher Pope, and Marisa Pope, students who attends Jamestown City School
District. Grace Johnson and Gregory Johnson, sue on their own behalf as
citizens-taxpayers and on behalf of their minor child, Abigail Johnson, a
student who attends Jamestown City School District. Maria Peterson and David
Peterson, sue on their own behalf as citizens-taxpayers and on behalf of their
minor child, Lindsey Peterson, a student who attends Jamestown City School
District. Lori Cobb and Lou Cobb, sue on their own behalf as citizens-taxpayers
and on behalf of their minor child, Fletcher Cobb-Sek, a student who attends
Jamestown City School District. Edward Poppiti, sues on his own behalf as
citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of his minor child, Ed Poppiti, a student who
attends Newburgh City School District. Dawn Fucheck, sues on her own behalf as
citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor children, Ryan Fucheck, Alexi
Fucheck, Brett Fucheck, students who attend Newburgh City School District.
Pamela R. Resch sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her
minor children Darri T. Resch and Collin N. Resch, students who attend Newburgh
City School District. Robin Johnson sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer
and on behalf of her minor children, Jamie Johnson, Samantha Johnson, Lindsay
Johnson, students who attend Newburgh City School District. Alyson Cheyerma sues
on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor children,
Haylee Cheyerma and Aubrey Cheyerma, students who attend Newburgh City School
District. William P. Zopf sues on his own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on
behalf of his minor children, Jacqueline Zopf, Rebecca Zopf, and William Zopf,
students who attend Newburgh City School District. Larry D. Cohen sues on his
own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of his minor children, Sarah
Rebecca Cohen and Mary Melissa Cohen, students who attend Newburgh City School
District. Donna Pineiro sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf
of her minor children, Noel Pineiro and Liam Pineiro, students who attend Beacon
City School District. Cynthia Griffin sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer
and on behalf of her minor child, Jamir Griffin, a student who attends Beacon
City School District. Julie K. Rodriquez sues on her own behalf as
citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor children, Dominick Rodriguez and
Nichole Rodriguez, students who attend Jamestown City School District. Barbara
Rachell sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor
child, Bradley Rachell, a student who attends Newburgh City School District.
Almetra Murdock sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her
minor children, Angel Murdock and Ariel Murdock, students who attend Newburgh
City School District., Sharon Currie sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer
and on behalf of her minor children, Vaneisha Currie, Lamar Currie, Anton Currie
and Jaekwon Myers, students who attend Newburgh City School District. Leona M.
Free sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor
children, Tamara Gezman and Omani Free, students who attend Newburgh City School
District. Zsa Zsa Holmes sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on
behalf of her minor children, Maruice Walter Holmes, Rayshoon Holmes, Kristla
Holmes, Donta Holmes and Jzamaine Morris, students who attend Newburgh City
School District. Tanisha Jackson sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and
on behalf of her minor children, Ivan Jackson, Anaya Jackson and Jaylen Jackson,
students who attend Newburgh City School District. Tonia Parker sues on her own
behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor children, Beverly Parker,
Bevon Webley, and Tantaneyas Owens, students who attend Newburgh City School
District. Elizabeth Robinson sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on
behalf of her minor children, Stardaysha Robinson, Obie Robinson and Nigel
Zachary Robinson, students who attend Newburgh City School District. Nellie
Stewart sues on her own behalf as citizen-taxpayer and on behalf of her minor
children, Tryon Stewart, Daawada Stewart and Dayton Stewart, students who attend
Newburgh City School District.
DEFENDANTS
12. Defendant the State of New York
(“State”) allocates financial aid to localities for education pursuant to the
provisions of Education Law and through an annual appropriation for state aid to
localities. The State receives billions of dollars annually in federal financial
aid for such components of the education system as compensatory education for
educationally deprived children in low-income areas, school lunches, aid to
disabled children, and vocational education.
13. Defendant State of New York (hereinafter "Defendant" or “State”) is
responsible for the operation, financing and administration of the New York
State public school system.
14. George E. Pataki is the Governor of the State of New York and is sued
in his official capacity.
15. Andrew S. Eristoff is the Commissioner of the Department of Taxation
and Finance of the State of New York and is sued in his official capacity.
SMALL CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
16.
Small city school districts serve approximately 260,000 children, or 2/3 of the
children in urban areas outside of New York City (see, Statistical
Profiles at Table 1) and the small cities contain approximately 1.5 million
residents. These districts are Albany, Amsterdam, Auburn, Batavia, Beacon,
Binghamton, Canandaigua, Cohoes, Corning, Cortland, Dunkirk, Elmira, Fulton,
Geneva, Glen Cove, Glens Falls, Gloversville, Hornell, Hudson, Ithaca,
Jamestown, Johnstown, Kingston, Lackawanna, Little Falls, Lockport, Long Beach,
Mechanicville, Middletown, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Newburgh, Niagara Falls,
North Tonawanda, Norwich, Ogdensburg, Olean, Oneida, Oneonta, Oswego, Peekskill,
Plattsburgh, Port Jervis, Poughkeepsie, Rensselaer, Rome, Rye, Salamanca,
Saratoga Springs, Schenectady, Sherrill, Tonawanda, Troy, Utica, Watertown,
Watervliet and White Plains.
17. Small city school districts
serve student populations with greater need than the average district statewide
and with far greater need than non-city districts in the state. Despite this,
these districts spend less per pupil than the state average and far less than
non-city districts. They also are poorer districts than the state average as
measured by real property and income and have far greater amounts of tax-exempt
real property, thereby further weakening their local property tax bases.
18. Nevertheless, over the seven years from 1996-97 through
2003-04 small city districts have received increases in state aid for education
which were significantly less than the state average increase. Given their high
student need, low property and income wealth and lower per pupil spending, it
would be expected that these districts would have received above average
increases in state aid during this period. If these districts had received even
just the average increase, they would have been allocated over $250 million more
during the period or nearly $5 million per district. In 2003-04 alone, small
city districts would have received $123 million more in state aid and
Plaintiffs’ Districts would have received over $2 million more in state aid.
This shortfall in State aid represents a 9% loss in state aid, which loss had a
devastating effect on educational programs and tax rates in these districts.
19. Since 1997 small city
school districts have been required to submit their school budgets to the voters
for approval each year. Poorer districts are more likely to experience budget
defeats and are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of an austerity budget
because they have less strength built into their programming. Because of the
high tax rates and declining tax bases in these districts, small city school
districts have experienced budget defeats twice as often as non-city districts.
If a budget is not approved by the voters, an austerity budget becomes
effective, often requiring the firing of teaching staff, reductions in already
weakened programming and elimination of extra curricular activities. Districts
working under two or more consecutive budget defeats experience irreparable harm
to the quality of their programs and to the education of their students.
20. Small city school districts
are subject to restrictive debt ceilings which in many cases have prevented or
slowed replacement and renovation of aging educational infrastructures. The debt
ceiling has therefore prevented many small city districts from providing the
adequate facilities which are a necessary component of a sound basic education.
Defendants have failed to remedy this situation by insuring small city districts
receive adequate funding for capital projects.
21. Small city school districts
are subject to a constitutional 5% debt ceiling as opposed to the statutory 10%
debt ceiling applicable to non-city districts. In 2003 the Legislature approved
a resolution and a bill which authorized a constitutional referendum which if
approved would have replaced the constitutional ceiling with a 10% statutory
ceiling. The referendum was defeated, primarily on the vote of jurisdictions
outside the small cities, The Legislature and the Governor in the weeks
preceding the referendum remained publicly neutral on the issue despite the
obvious inequity in the existing law.
22. With respect to debt
ceilings, a further glaring inequity exists between small city districts and
non-city districts. Non-city school districts can take advantage of provisions
of Local Finance Law section 121.20 which allows those districts to exclude any
amounts received as state building aid from the computation of debt under the
ceiling. This same provision does not apply to small city school districts.
Since building aid pays for at least 60% of all capital projects the effective
amount of the debt ceiling in non-city districts is three to four times as high
in non-city districts as in small city school districts.
23. In 1998 the Governor and
the Legislature approved the Charter School Law (Education Law, Article 56),
which permits the establishment of up to 100 Charter Schools statewide by
for-profit companies, non-profit companies and public school districts. These
schools are funded directly by the school districts from which the charter
school students come. These school districts are required to pay the charter
schools the approved operating expense (AOE) per child of the districts for each
child attending the charter school. School districts experience little or no
reduction in operating costs when a child attends a charter school and the cost
of charter school tuition becomes an added expense to the district.
Moreover, the funding provided to all charter schools
comes from the average operating expense of the district, including expenses
from kindergarten (the least) through high school (the most). However, charter
schools in small cities are all elementary schools that cost the least to
operate. Charter schools draw, therefore, a
highly disproportionate amount from the public school in favor of the charter
school. Nevertheless, no additional state aid has been appropriated to
defray the cost of the charter school payments and the school districts making
such payments have increased their tax levies to accommodate those costs.
24. Approximately 70 charter
schools have been established since 1998 and many more are currently in the
process of obtaining approvals. Almost all of the charter schools are located in
or near cities including a number of small cities. The relative size of the
charter schools in the small cities is far larger than the size of schools
located in New York City or in the other so-called Big Five cities. The result
of this is that the cost of charter schools in the small cities has had a
significantly adverse impact on small city school budgets and local tax rates.
25. In 1997, the Governor and
the Legislature enacted a school tax relief program (STAR) pursuant to Chapter
389 of the laws of 1997. STAR was intended to relieve the local taxpayer from
the growing burden of school taxes and provided for reductions in school tax
bills to property owners and reimbursement of the amounts of such reductions to
the school districts by the State. The STAR program was, in effect, a way of
increasing state aid to education but avoiding the basic operating aid formula
which targeted aid to those districts with the greatest student need and lowest
property wealth. The STAR program instead targeted state aid to the wealthiest
districts: under this program wealthy districts receive twice as much funding
per student as poorer districts. The program was phased in over a number of
years and now diverts nearly $3 billion in state aid from the operating aid
formula. The result of this program is that enormous sums of state revenues each
year are distributed to wealthier districts which are on “save-harmless”
provisions of the education law, districts that would not be otherwise entitled
to any increases under the basic operating aid formula.
26. The basic state education
aid formula, formerly known as operating aid or comprehensive operating aid,
provides for state aid to be distributed on a per pupil basis adjusted according
to student weightings and a measure of district wealth called the combined
wealth ratio. In effect this formula has provided for the targeting of state aid
to those districts and students with the greatest need for state assistance.
However, the State has consistently failed to maintain a reasonable relationship
between this formula and the actual cost of providing an adequate education:
first, by failing to increase the aid ceiling for more over two (2) decades;
second, by failing fully to recognize the full differential between the
educational costs between disadvantaged (at risk) and non-disadvantaged
students; third, by basing the student count on attendance rather than
enrollment, which consistently under-counts students in high-poverty urban
schools; and finally, by providing the districts, even the wealthiest,
districts, cannot get less aid than they did in the so-called base year even
though demographics and wealth measures might otherwise require a reduction in
state aid. Districts protected from such reductions are the so-called
“save-harmless” districts.
27. On the other end of the
scale from the save-harmless districts are the districts with the weakest tax
bases and greatest student need. The Legislature and the Governor have limited
increases in the amounts these districts would have gotten under the formula by
the use of a cap called the transition aid cap. This cap provides that state aid
that otherwise would have gone to the poorest districts is instead available for
distribution through other aid formulas, many of which do not have the same
wealth and student need targeting provisions that the operating aid formula has.
The result of the save-harmless and transition aid cap provisions is that much
of the aid that would have gone to poorer districts was, and continues to be,
distributed to a wider number of districts without significant regard to the
relative needs of districts and the students in them.
28. The failure to align
state support with local wealth and need has
resulted in the gross disparity between tax rates and per pupil spending in
non-city districts and in small city school districts including Plaintiffs’
Districts. This failure has resulted in the gross disparity between these
districts in educational resources and student performance.
THE EDUCATION
ARTICLE REQUIRES DEFENDANTS
TO PROVIDE ALL STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY
OF A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION
29. The
New York State Constitution, in the Education Article of Article XI, Section 1,
requires that the State “legislature shall provide for the maintenance and
support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this
state may be educated.”
30. The
New York State Court of Appeals has interpreted the Education Article of the New
York Constitution, in CFE I, as imposing a duty on the State of New York
to provide “all children the opportunity of a sound basic education”
(Hereinafter “SBE”) (at 315).
31. The
Court of Appeals has further defined the constitutional minimum SBE as the
provision of a “meaningful high school education” which prepares students for
civic participation in society, as voters, jurors, and employees, for example (CFE
II, at 905).
32. New
York State, through its education aid allocation scheme, has violated this
Constitutional mandate by failing to provide sufficient funding to Plaintiffs’
Districts and has failed to provide the opportunity of a SBE to students of the
Albany City School District, Beacon City School District, Binghamton City School
District, Cohoes City School District, Corning City School District, Dunkirk
City School District, Glens Falls City School District, Jamestown City School
District, Kingston City School District, Middletown City School District, Mt.
Vernon City School District, Newburgh City School District, Niagara Falls City
School District, North Tonawanda City School District, Poughkeepsie City School
District, Salamanca City School District, Schenectady City School District and
Tonawanda City School District. The combined effect of
inadequate local wealth, high tax rates and voter imposed budget caps
effectively precludes Plaintiffs' Districts from compensating for the failings
created by the State’s defective aid system.
33. As a result of the State’s education funding system, students
attending Plaintiffs’ Districts are denied a SBE as measured by the several
“inputs” outlined in the Court of Appeals 2003 decision in CFE II (at
909-914):
a. The quality of teaching at the Plaintiffs’
Districts lags behind the State average, and far behind non-city districts, as
reflected in the percentage of teachers instructing in a subject for which they
are not certified, the percentage of teachers with fewer than three years of
teaching experience, the failure rates on the State teacher certification
examinations, the ranking of colleges or universities attended and the teachers’
class standings at those institutions, and the professional development
opportunities available. Salary differentials and poor working conditions in
Plaintiffs’ Districts also indicate that these districts are unable to attract
sufficient numbers of highly qualified and experienced teachers.
b. School facilities and classrooms are inadequate in Plaintiffs’
Districts. Overcrowding is shown through encroachment of ordinary classroom
activities into spaces designed for specialized activities, such as science labs
or cafeterias. Class sizes are excessive and exceed the State average and
significantly exceed the average in non-city districts. Additionally, school
buildings in Plaintiffs’ Districts are older and are in greater disrepair than
is true in non-city districts.
c. The instrumentalities of learning are also deficient in Plaintiffs’
Districts. These districts have fewer library books and computers per student
than non-city districts in the State. Furthermore, those computers that are
available to students are older and often incompatible with current software
programs. Deficiencies exist in basic classroom supplies, as well.
34. The
weaknesses and failings in educational inputs at the schools in Plaintiffs’
Districts are manifested by the following:
a. Class sizes are too high to permit the needed interaction and
dialogue between students and teachers, and class sizes in many schools are in
excess of 30 students per class;
b. There are insufficient numbers of qualified and experienced teachers
and in many schools there are more than 25% of teachers without masters degrees
and more than 25% with under three years of experience and, in some schools,
more than 11% uncertified teachers, more than 50% without masters degrees and
more than 50% with fewer than three years experience;
c. In many schools in Plaintiffs’ Districts there are insufficient
numbers of teachers to provide the necessary extra help and instruction on a
remedial basis or otherwise, during or after the regular school day;
d. In many schools in Plaintiffs’ Districts there are insufficient
numbers of up to date text books and library books and many libraries have
books, on average, over 50 years old;
e. In many schools in Plaintiffs’ Districts there are insufficient
numbers of science laboratories and attendant equipage;
f. Many school buildings in Plaintiffs’ Districts are aged more than
100 years old in some cases, and have badly deteriorating and insufficiently
maintained classrooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias, auditoriums, administrative
spaces and common areas;
g. Many schools in Plaintiffs’ Districts have insufficient numbers of
and access to sports programs, art programs, music programs and other
extra-curricular activities and
h. In Plaintiffs’ Districts which fail to obtain voter approval of their
school budgets and operate under one, or successive, austerity budgets,
conditions described in subparagraphs a through g above continue to worsen
through firing of teaching staff, reductions in programming and inability to
replace as needed or maintain the educational infrastructures.
i.
The result of the weaknesses and failings in educational inputs is that
thousands of students in Plaintiffs’ Districts attend school in overcrowded
classes, are taught by unqualified and inexperienced teachers and are not
provided with the facilities and equipment necessary to a SBE.
j. Further, these inadequacies in inputs result in the failure to
provide Plaintiffs’ Districts’ at risk children the greater time on task and
expanded programs necessary to provide them a SBE.
35. An
examination of the “outputs” enumerated by the Court of Appeals CFE II
(at 914-919) underscores the State’s denial of the opportunity for a SBE in
Plaintiffs’ Districts:
a. The high school completion rates in four years or by age
twenty-one for Plaintiffs' Districts are lower than rates in other districts in
the State and far lower than in non-city districts. These disheartening
statistics are also reflected in much higher suspension and dropout rates,
percentages of general equivalency and non-Regents' diplomas attained, and lower
percentages of graduates attending four-year colleges or universities.
b. Test results in the 4th and 8th
grade Math and ELA exams and in Regents Exams are lower than in other districts
in the State and far lower than in non-city districts. Moreover, tests results
and numbers participating in testing on Regents Exams of certain student
subgroups in Plaintiffs' Districts such as economically disadvantaged, children
with disabilities and ethnic and racial minorities are far lower than the state
average and as low, and in some cases lower, than in New York City. Also, these
results show a pervasive and systematic link between the degree of student
poverty and high failure rates among poor and minority students. These test
results are attributable to funding shortages resulting from deficiencies in the
aid formula.
36. The
shortcomings in educational outputs of the schools in Plaintiffs’ Districts are
manifested by the following:
a. More than 50% of 4th grade
students tested in English Language Arts (ELA) score in the first two (of four)
levels, demonstrating unsatisfactory performance;
b. More than 35% of the 4th grade
students tested in Mathematics (Math) score in the first two levels,
demonstrating unsatisfactory performance;
c. More than 75% of 8th grade
students tested in ELA score in the first two levels, demonstrating
unsatisfactory performance;
d. More than 75% of the 8th grade
students tested in Math score in the first two levels, demonstrating
unsatisfactory performance;
e. More than 55% of students at the elementary
school level, 75% at the middle school level and 25% at the high school level
require remedial programs for ELA;
f. More than 35% of students at the elementary
school level, 75% at the middle school level and 65% at the high school level
require remedial programs for Math;
g. The drop out rates are between two to three
times the drop out rates in the surrounding suburban districts;
h. The suspension rates are more than twice the
suspension rates in the surrounding suburban districts;
i. The percentage of students continuing to
college is significantly lower than in surrounding suburban districts, and in
some cases below 35% which is half the percentage in New York City;
THE EDUCATION ARTICLE REQUIRES THE STATE TO
COMPENSATE FOR THE VARYING EDUCATIONAL,
PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, MENTAL, AND
SOCIOECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES FACED
BY CHILDREN
37. The
Constitutional minimum SBE must be made available to all students in New York
State. As the Court of Appeals reiterated (CFE II, at 915, quoting the
Supreme Court decision CFE v NYS, 187 Misc.2d 1, 2001 (CFE Trial)
at 63), the opportunity for a SBE must “be placed within reach of all students,”
including those who “present with socio-economic deficits.”
38. The Court of Appeals has rejected the argument, advanced
by the State in CFE II, that the State was not a substantial cause of
poor student performance because a large number of students came from
disadvantaged backgrounds, by stating that “we cannot accept the premise that
children come to…schools ineducable, unfit to learn (CFE II at 921).”
39. In its 2001 decision, the Supreme Court further opined
that at-risk students need specially tailored educational programs to meet the
Constitutional minimum standard (CFE Trial at 47).
40. Plaintiffs’ Districts have populations with dramatically
higher rates of poverty, minority status, and special education needs than rates
in non-city districts. For example, Plaintiffs’ Districts have much higher
percentages of children on the Federal Free and Reduced Priced Lunch Program (FRPL)
which in several Plaintiffs’ Districts exceed two thirds of their children on
the program. The students residing in these districts are some of the children
most in need of resources. In the face of this, the State has under-funded the
Plaintiffs’ Districts in violation of the Education Article. In fact, recent
studies have shown that Plaintiffs’ Districts in 2001-02 were receiving $270
million less in State Aid per year than was necessary to provide a SBE. For
Plaintiffs’ Districts this represented a shortfall in State Aid of up to 40% and
in subsequent years since 2001-02 the shortfall has only worsened.
41. The
State’s education aid system has chronically failed to place the SBE “within
reach” of these at-risk students.
42. Although the Plaintiffs’ Districts have greater need for
resources to provide the opportunity for a SBE to their students, as outlined
above, the average per pupil spending of these districts lags considerably
behind the state average and far behind non-city districts. Studies have shown
that Plaintiffs’ Districts needed to spend up to 35% more on a per pupil basis
in order to provide a SBE.
43. The wide gap in per pupil spending in Plaintiffs’
Districts as compared to non-city school districts is a result of the State
education aid system, not of local tax efforts. Residents of Plaintiffs'
Districts pay significantly higher rates of school tax than the state average.
In fact, if local tax rates for Plaintiffs’ Districts were adjusted to reflect
the state average, Plaintiffs’ Districts would experience up to a 40% reduction
in these rates.
44. In addition, the tax bases of Plaintiffs’ Districts are
much weaker than in the average district in the State and far weaker than in
non-city districts. Thus, Plaintiffs' Districts are more than doing their part
in attempting to meet the constitutionally required level of education for their
students.
CAUSATION
45. The Court
of Appeals, in its 1995 decision, required that plaintiffs asserting a violation
of the Education Article show a causal link between any proven failure to
provide a SBE and the State funding system (CFE I at 317-318).
46. In its 2001 decision, the Supreme Court outlined an
interpretation of this requirement, which was later approved by the Court of
Appeals, that plaintiffs need only show that the funding system is a substantial
cause of the educational deficit, not the sole cause (CFE Trial at 92,
CFE II at 920).
47. Considering the foregoing, the State’s education aid
system is a substantial cause of the constitutional violation of the Education
Article in Plaintiffs’ Districts. As the Supreme Court found in regard to New
York City Schools (CFE Trial at ), the State aid formulas have also
long failed to align funding with need in Plaintiffs’ Districts.
48. The glaring misalignment between funding and need has led
to inadequate educational “inputs,” which in turn have let to unsatisfactory
student performance. As such, the State’s education aid system is a substantial
cause of the violation of the rights of students in Plaintiffs’ Districts to the
opportunity for a SBE.
AND AS FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
49. Plaintiffs
repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1”
through “48” as though fully set forth herein at length.
50. The state educational system is unconstitutional for it
has failed, and continues to fail, by reason of insufficient funding, to provide
all children in Plaintiffs’ Districts the opportunity for a sound basic
education.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
51. Plaintiffs
repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1”
through “50” as though fully set forth herein at length.
52. The Education Article of the State Constitution which
requires the Legislature to provide a system wherein all children may be
educated means that all children must have a meaningful opportunity for a sound
basic education, and that system, in order to provide a meaningful opportunity,
must compensate for the varying educational, physical, emotional, mental and
socioeconomic disadvantages that children have.
53. The State Educational system is unconstitutional for
failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for children in
Plaintiff's Districts by not providing sufficient funding to compensate for
these various educational, emotional, mental and socioeconomic disadvantages.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
54. Plaintiffs
repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs "1"
through "53" as though fully set forth herein at length.
55. The Education Article of the State Constitution which
requires the Legislature to provide a system wherein all children may be
educated means that all children must have a meaningful opportunity for a sound
basis education, and that system, in order to provide a meaningful opportunity,
must provide sufficient funding to compensate for the varying education,
physical, emotional, mental, and socioeconomic disadvantages that children have.
56. The State Educational System is unconstitutional for
failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for all children
in poor urban, suburban and rural school districts by not providing sufficient
funding to compensate for these various educational, emotional, mental, and
socioeconomic disadvantages.
AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
57. Plaintiffs
repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1”
through “56” as though fully set forth herein at length.
58. The State Educational system is unconstitutional for
failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education by reason of
insufficient funding for all economically disadvantaged children in Plaintiffs'
Districts, all racial and ethic minority children in Plaintiffs' Districts, and
for all children with disabilities in Plaintiffs' Districts.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
59.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in
Paragraphs "1" through "58" as though fully set forth herein at length.
60. The State Education system is unconstitutional for failure
to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education by reason of insufficient
funding for all economically disadvantaged children, all racial and ethic
minority children, for all children with disabilities and for all children
attending school districts with high concentrations of poverty.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment as
follows:
1. Declaring that Defendants’ failure to appropriate
sufficient funds to permit the Plaintiffs’ Districts to provide sufficient
educational services to insure opportunities to meet or exceed the statewide
standards of educational quality and quantity and to obtain a sound basic
education, violates Defendants’ obligations under the Educational Article of New
York State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1;
2. Permanently enjoining Defendants to create and maintain a
State Education aid system that complies with the requirements of the Education
Article of the New York Constitution and that provides a meaningful opportunity
to receive an education meeting the minimum standards articulated by the Court
of Appeals in (CFE I and CFE II) to all public school students in
the Plaintiffs’ Districts;
3. Permanently enjoining Defendant to create and maintain a
state education aid system that complies with the requirements of the Education
Article of the New York Constitution and that provides a meaningful opportunity
to receive an education meeting the minimum standards articulated by the Court
of Appeals in (CFE I and CFE II) to all public school students in
all public school districts in the state;
4. Providing that this Court retain jurisdiction over this
action, to ensure compliance with the injunctive relief;
5. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs in bringing this action; and
6. Providing such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
Dated: Albany, New York
January 26, 2006
ROBERT
E. BIGGERSTAFF, ESQ.
________________________________
Robert
E. Biggerstaff, Esq.
Main
Square, 318 Delaware Avenue
Delmar,
New York 12054
518-
475-9500
Glen P.
Doherty, Esq.
75 State
Street, P.O. Box 459
Albany,
New York 12201-0459
518-447-3200
Laura K.
Biggerstaff, Esq.
Main
Square, 318 Delaware Avenue
Delmar,
New York 12054
518-475-9500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
| |
•Albany
•Amsterdam
•Auburn
•Batavia
•Beacon
•Binghamton
•Canandaigua
•Cohoes
•Corning
•Cortland
•Dunkirk
•Elmira
•Fulton
•Geneva
•Glen Cove
•Glens Falls
•Gloversville
•Hornell
•Hudson
•Ithaca
•Jamestown
•Johnstown
•Kingston
•Lackawanna
•Little
Falls
•Lockport
•Long
Beach
•Mechanicville
•Middletown
•Mount
Vernon
•New
Rochelle
•Newburgh
•Niagara
Falls
•N.
Tonawanda
•Norwich
•Ogdensburg
•Olean
•Oneida
•Oneonta
•Oswego
•Peekskill
•Plattsburgh
•Port
Jervis
•Poughkeepsie
•Rensselaer
•Rome
•Rye
•Salamanca
•Saratoga
•Schenectady
•Tonawanda
•Troy
•Utica
•Vernon
Verona Sherrill
•Watertown
•Watervliet
•White
Plains
|
