Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
105 citation events (81 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Arum v. Miller, 193 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) · Strongest negative: Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 503 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2007)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 688 Failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives court of jurisdiction36 citing cases“determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the idea,”2 citing courts quote it · 33 listed here · 2 cautionary
  • Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 503 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2007).published Cited "but see" · 2 cites
    (holding that section 1415( l ) of the IDEA is jurisdictional)
  • Weber v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 245 F. Supp. 2d 401 (D.R.I. 2003).published Cited "but see"
    See Charlie F., 98 F.3d 989, 991 . (because failure to exhaust can usually be waived by defendants, it is not a jurisdictional issue); but see Babicz, 135 F.3d at 1421 (failure to exhaust deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction); W.B…
  • L.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 1:21-cv-06626 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2023).
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)).
  • Killoran v. Westhampton Beach Sch. Dist., No. 2:21-cv-03264, 2022 WL 4484630 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022).
    Cir. 2002) (holding failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).
  • Spring v. Allegany-Limestone Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 1:14-cv-00476 (W.D.N.Y. May 17, 2022).
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)).
  • Neske v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 1:19-cv-02933, 2019 WL 3531959 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019).
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)); B.C. ex rel.
  • Johnson v. Boston Pub. Schs., No. 1:15-cv-10026 (D. Mass. Mar. 7, 2018).
    Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995).
  • Est. of D.B. ex rel. Briggs v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist., 169 F. Supp. 3d 320 (N.D.N.Y. 2016).published
    Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 and Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 [2d Cir.1995]).
  • A.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 90 F. Supp. 3d 326 (D.N.J. 2015).published
    (finding claims asserted under the ADA subject to the IDEA’S exhaustion requirement, if such claims seek relief available under the IDEA)
  • Donus ex rel. Donus v. Garden City Union Free Sch. Dist., 987 F. Supp. 2d 218 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    See Cave, 514 F.3d at 245 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(2)(A)); Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (“Although the IDEA provides for a federal cause of action ..., it imposes a broadly applicable requirement that plaintiffs first exhaust administrative…
Show 23 more citing cases
  • N.K. ex rel. J.K. v. New York City Deptartment of Educ., 961 F. Supp. 2d 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir.2002); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995); see also B.M., 2013 WL 1972144 , at *6 (holding that the Second Circuit’s precedent treating failure to exhaust under the IDEA as jurisdictional rema…
  • A.M. ex rel. Y.N. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 964 F. Supp. 2d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir.2002); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • P. v. Greenwich Bd. of Educ., 929 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Conn. 2013).published
    Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir.2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).” “Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16 , 126 S.Ct. 403 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 [ ] (2005) and Kontric…
  • Intravaia ex rel. Intravaia v. Rocky Point Union Free Sch. Dist., 919 F. Supp. 2d 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    “A plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative, remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)); see also Cave, 514 F.3d at 245 ;…
  • T.W. ex rel. H.W. v. Spencerport Cent. Sch. Dist., 891 F. Supp. 2d 438 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).published
    Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245-246 (2d Cir.2008) (feder al claims under other statutes seeking relief available under the IDEA are subject to the IDEA’S exhaustion requirements); Polera, 288 F.3d 478 at 483 (same); Fennell v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 6…
  • Philip Baldessarre v. Monroe-Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist., 496 F. App'x 131 (2d Cir. 2012).unpublished
    Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 and Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 3 There is no dispute that the plaintiffs did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to them and requi…
  • Dean v. Sch. Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, NY, 615 F. Supp. 2d 63 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).published
    “Failure to exhaust the administrative remedies deprives the • court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 6…
  • Cave v. East Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2008).published
    Cir.2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).
  • Cave v. East Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 480 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).published 3 cites
    Only after the parents have exhausted these procedures may they seek judicial review. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(2)(a); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • Starkey ex rel. Starkey v. Somers Cent. Sch. Dist., 319 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).published
    Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • Perreault-Osborne v. New Milford Bd. of Educ., 74 F. App'x 148 (2d Cir. 2003).unpublished
    Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (l)); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • B.H. v. Southington Bd. of Educ., 273 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D. Conn. 2003).published
    Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195, 199 (2d Cir.2002) (a plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies, when required, deprives the court of jurisdiction), citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995); see also Taylor, 313 F.3d…
  • Taylor v. Vermont Dep't of Educ., 313 F.3d 768 (2d Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995). 89 Plaintiff is nonetheless entitled to proceed with her claim under one, if not more, of the recognized exceptions to this requirement.
  • McAdams v. Bd. of Educ. of the Rocky Point Union Free Sch. Dist., 216 F. Supp. 2d 86 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).published 2 cites
    Indeed, “[a] plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 1.
  • Pearl Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2002).published
    Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • RM ex rel. JM v. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 208 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D. Conn. 2002).published
    See id. at 483 ; Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • Sabur ex rel. Kessler v. Brosnan, 203 F. Supp. 2d 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).published
    Indeed, “[a] plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 1.
  • Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    “on the opinion of the District Court”
  • Polera v. Bd. Of Ed. Of N'burgh City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    “on the opinion of the District Court”
  • Stan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).published
    The Second Circuit’s decision in Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995), does not require a different result.
  • Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area Sch. Dist., 78 F. Supp. 2d 138 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).published
    Blackmon v. Springfield R-XII School Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 655 (8th Cir.1999); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
  • Jeremy H. v. Mount Lebanon Sch. Dist., 95 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 1996).published 2 cites
    (holding that exhaustion is required as to ADA claims)
  • A.W.S. v. Southampton Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 2:19-cv-00889 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023).
    (affirming dismissal of both disability and race discrimination claims of dyslexic student under Title VI for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA)
Other citing cases12 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 2 more citing cases
Lloyd Hope and Constance Fennell, Individually and as Parents and Lawful Guardians of Moyo Hope, a Minor and Moyo Hope
v.
Ramon Cortines, Individually and as Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York and the Board of Education of the City of New York
274.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 8, 1995.
Published opinion
69 F.3d 687
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31620
1995 WL 671581
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

69 F.3d 687

104 Ed. Law Rep. 595, 4 A.D. Cases 1856,
7 NDLR P 296

Lloyd HOPE and Constance Fennell, individually and as
parents and lawful guardians of Moyo Hope, a
minor; and Moyo Hope, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Ramon CORTINES, individually and as Chancellor of the Board
of Education of the City of New York; and the
Board of Education of the City of New
York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 274, Docket 95-7151.

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 13, 1995.
Decided Nov. 8, 1995.

Loren Baily, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jane L. Gordon, New York City (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Barry P. Schwartz, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

[*~687–688]1

Plaintiffs-appellants Moyo Hope, a sixteen year-old minor, and his parents appeal from the January 9, 1995, judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, Judge) dismissing their lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993), against the Board of Education of the City of New York and its Chancellor. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability and race by refusing to provide appropriate educational services to Moyo, a child who is both gifted and afflicted with dyslexia. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' ADA claim, as well as other claims not pursued on appeal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993). Plaintiffs ask this Court to vacate the dismissal of the ADA claim and return the case to the District Court.

2

In a thorough, thoughtful opinion, the District Court explained why claims asserted under the ADA are subject to the IDEA's requirement, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(f), that litigants exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures before bringing suit under the ADA to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA. Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y.1995). The District Court also determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA, and that plaintiffs' claims do not fall within any of the exceptions to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Id. at 21-23. We affirm on the opinion of the District Court.