REFORM EDUCATIONAL FINANCING INEQUITIES TODAY (R.E.F.I.T.) & C. ET AL.
APPELLANTSv. MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVENOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
86 N.Y.2d 279, 655 N.E.2d 647, 631 N.Y.S.2d 551
June 15, 1995
2 No. 2 (1995 NY Int. 158)
Decided June 15, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Daniel P. Levitt, for Appellants.
Daniel Smirlock, for Respondents.
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; Campaign for Fiscal
Equity, Inc.; City of New York, et al.; American Civil Liberties
Union, et al.; and New York State Association of Small City School
Districts, amici curiae.
LEVINE, J.:
In this action for declaratory judgment we are asked to determine
whether plaintiffs have stated a cause of action in their pleadings
and supporting papers in which they seek a declaration that New York's
system for financing its public elementary and se condary schools is
unconstitutional. Plaintiffs, Reform Educational Financing Inequities
Today (REFIT), a not-for-profit membership organization suing on
behalf of itself and 40 member school districts, the Boards of
Education of 21 Long Island school districts participating
individually, individual taxpayers, parents, and public school
students re siding in participating school districts, allege in their
complaint that the statutory scheme by which New York finances its
public schools violates the Education Article of the New York
Constitution (art XI, § 1), and the Equal Protection Clauses of the
Federal and State Constitutions.(n 1) Supreme Court dismissed
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cause of action (152 Misc
2d 714), and the Appellate Division modified, on the law, by adding a
provision to the Supreme Court judgment declaring New York's school
financing scheme constitutional and, as so modified, affirmed (199
AD2d 488). We agree with the courts below.
Our State Constitution requires that "(t)he legislature shall provide
for maintenance and support of a system of free common schools,
wherein all the children of this state may be educated" (art XI, § 1).
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc.; City of New
In this action for declaratory judgment we are asked to determine whether plaintiffs have
Plaintiffs, Reform Educational Financing Inequities Today, a not-for-profit membership
Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.Supreme Court
Our State Constitution requires that "he legislature shall provide for maintenance and
In Board of Education v Nyquist (57 NY2d 27) (hereinafter Levittown), this Court held that
Plaintiffs in this action do not claim that students in their district are receiving
their pleadings and supporting papers demonstrate that there now exists a greater disparity
Plaintiffs now claim that this disparity demonstrates a gross and glaring inadequacy in the
Plaintiffs' argument rests on their assertion that Levittown left the door open for a
The Education Article does not by its express terms contain an egalitarian component.
Therefore, even accepting plaintiffs' allegations of gross disparities between the amount of
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as it affirmed dismissal of the
Moreover, neither in their pleadings and other submissions on this motion to dismiss, nor in
Finally, rather than affirm the Appellate Division's broad and definitive declaration of the
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Ciparick concur, Judge Smith
|
