Lawsuits involving the East Ramapo Central School District have popped up over the last few years. Here’s a look at some of the current ones pending.

1. Lawsuits upon
Lawsuits:
Understanding the
legal disputes
Lawsuits involving the East Ramapo Central School District
have popped up over the last several years. Here’s a look at
some of the current ones pending.

2. East Ramapo School District vs.
the Board of Education
Plaintiffs
Defendants
There are currently close
to 400 plaintiffs which
include the
parents, students and
residents of East Ramapo.
• Daniel Schwartz, former president of
BoE
• Yehuda Weissmandl, current President
of BoE
• Moses Friedman, Member
• Moshe Hopstein, Member
• Eliyahu Solomon, Member
• Nathan Rothschild, former Member
• Aron Wieder, former President of
BoE/current member
• Morris Kohn, former President of BoE
• Richard Stone, former Member
• Albert D’agostino, Esq., District lawyer
• Joel Klein, Superintendent of Schools
• Eliezer Wizman, former ERSD
Administrator

3. East Ramapo School District vs.
the Board of Education (cont.)
• Charges:
• The plaintiffs allege the ERCSD Board of Education was perpetrating
segregation within the district.
• The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are using both Title I and
Title III funds for religious purposes. Title I funds must be used for
secular, neutral religious purposes. Title III funds must be used to
help limited English speakers attain proficiency. However, the
plaintiffs allege that this is not the case.
• Plaintiffs also state that auditors found that the district did not
maintain adequate records of how per pupil amount for Title I
funding was calculated. There were no documentation as to
allocation of funds.
• Plaintiffs allege that afterschool remedial services were created for
private schools, using Title I funds. Court documents specify that these
remedial programs were longer and received more funding than public
schools.
• State auditors found questionable expenditures under Title I and
questionable placements under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).

4. East Ramapo School District vs.
the Board of Education (cont.)
• Charges (cont.):
• Plaintiffs allege that Board of Education has bypassed the Special
Education process to provide a publicly funded private education.
Court documents say that 24 of 27 student records reviewed
were incomplete and lacked components required by the NYS
Commissioner of Education.
• The approved placement process is as follows:
• The IDEA requires that a Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is drawn
up by a Committee on Special Education (CSE) should a child be
required special education services.
• If a student requires special placement in a private school, the CSE
must approve the placement.
• If approved, federal, state, and school district money may be used to
reimburse the district for the child’s tuition.
• However, if not approved, the district may pay the tuition without
reimbursement from state or federal funds.

5. East Ramapo School District vs.
the Board of Education (cont.)
• Ruling:
• Filed in 2012, this case is still pending. In October 2013, Judge
Cathy Seibel allowed key parts of the lawsuit to continue, but
dismissed the other charges of racial discrimination.
• These key charges include:
• Placement of Hasidic and Orthodox students in private special
education schools at the public’s expense.
• Using government funding to purchase religious textbooks
• Selling unused District property at below-market value to religious
developers
• Conspiring to hiring attorney Albert D’Agostino as a means to place
religious students in a special education private school in a manner
that allows for the District to forfeit state reimbursements

6. East Ramapo School District vs.
State Education Department
Plaintiffs
East Ramapo Central
School District
Defendants
• James P. Delorenzo, NYS
Assistant Commissioner
of Education
• John B. King, Jr., NYS
Commissioner of
Education
• State Education
Department of the
University of New York
State

7. East Ramapo School District vs. State
Education Department (cont.)
• Charges:
• Repeated actions of noncompliance to requests to correct the
District’s special education process, resulting in unsatisfactory
IEPs and CSEs.
• The district then filed a lawsuit, requesting a “declaratory
judgment that the IDEA provides the District with broad
discretion to fashion mutually agreeable settlements to parental
challenges.”
• The district also wanted to make changes in the process of
designating special education placements. This includes allowing
one person to conduct a IEP resolution meeting; settling disputes
by allowing for a placement to be made in the district’s best
financial interests; and settling parental challenges to CSE
placement recognition without the CSE’s approval.

8. East Ramapo School District vs. State
Education Department (cont.)
• Ruling:
• The judge ultimately ruled that the case be dismissed, citing the
the NYSED’s argument that the guarantee of state sovereign
immunity provided by the 11th Amendment.
• The judge also ruled that the District was incorrect in its
interpretation of the IDEA, in that it afforded the district no new
rights and the law was meant to protect students with disabilities
and their parents.