U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2006

D.F. v. Board of Education

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided May 9, 2006 · Berman, Cabranes, Raggi

180 F. App'x 232

Counsel

E. Christopher Murray (LaDonna M. Lusher, on the brief), New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Garden City, NY, for Appellant., Peter J. Biging, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, NY, for the Board of Education and Principal Kassebaum, for Appellees., James M. Wicks (Steven N. Davi, on the brief), Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, NY, for Superintendent Hankin, for Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

J.R. v. Penns Manor Area Sch. Dist. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 2019)
Keenan v. Pav (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
Arnold v. Town of Camillus, New York (District Court, N.D. New York 2023)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board (5th Cir. 2014)
Milo v. City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
Fugelsang v. The Department of Education of New York City (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
Jean v. The Department of Education of the City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
Famiglietti v. New York City Department of Sanitation (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
E.T. ex rel. Doe v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2016)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board (5th Cir. 2014)
Bertuglia v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2012)
TC v. Valley Central School District (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff “D.F.,” through his father Andrew Finkle, appeals from a September 30, 2005 judgment of the District Court dismissing all of his claims against all defendants on the basis of the District Court’s September 12, 2005 Memorandum and Order, 386 F.Supp.2d 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the District Court, we conclude that judgment for the defendants was appropriate for all claims.

We have carefully considered all of D.F.’s arguments and find them without merit. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.