Eschenasy v. New York City Department of Education
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
604 F. Supp. 2d 639 (2009)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Ann Eschenasy was a disturbed teenager who had continually struggled with behavior and school problems from a young age. Over the years, Ann had stolen, lied, used drugs, run away from home, attempted suicide, cut herself, and pulled out her hair. She had been enrolled in, and suspended and expelled from, a number of private schools and showed poor academic progress overall. Ann had received multiple efforts at treatment in a variety of settings and had been diagnosed with various conditions, including conduct disorders, borderline-personality disorders, and mood disorders. After repeated failures at schools focused on children with emotional problems, Ann’s parents, the Eschensays (plaintiffs) eventually enrolled her in a restrictive and structured residential school, where she made academic and emotional progress. The Eschensays petitioned the New York City Department of Education (the district) (defendant) to pay for Ann’s tuition at the school under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but the district held that Ann was not disabled and therefore ineligible for special-education benefits. The state ultimately upheld the district’s decision after the Eschensays petitioned for an administrative review. The Eschensays brought their claim for Ann’s coverage under the IDEA to federal district court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cedarbaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.