Cruz v. Banks

── Cruz v. Banks ── Case No.: 24-1147 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: General 24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit 3 _________________ 4 5 August Term 2024 6 7 Argued: December 20, 2024 8 Decided: April 7, 2026 9 10 No. 24-1147 11 _________________ 12 13 NEYSHA CRUZ, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF O.F. AND INDIVIDUALLY, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 v. 18 19 DAVID C. BANKS, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 20 21 Defendants-Appellees. 22 23 _________________ 24 25 On Appeal from the United States District Court 26 for the Southern District of New York 27 _________________ 28 29 Before: CALABRESI, PARK, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges. 30 31 In this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 32 Southern District of New York, we certified a question to the New York Court of 33 Appeals, which it has now answered. In light of that answer, the judgment is 34 affirmed. 35 _____________________________________ 1  24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 2 RORY J. BELLANTONI, Brain Injury Rights Group, Ltd, 3 New York, New York, for Plaintiff 4 5 D. ALAN ROSINUS, JR., of Counsel, MURIEL GOODE- 6 TRUFANT, Acting Corporation Counsel of the City of 7 New York, New York, New York, for Defendants 8 _____________________________________ 9 10 PER CURIAM: 11 We return to this appeal from a judgment of the United State District Court 12 for the Southern District of New York (Jennifer L. Rochon, Judge). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, set forth in 14 detail in our earlier decision. Cruz v. Banks, 134 F.4th 687 (2d Cir. 2025). 15 On April 15, 2025, we certified a question to the New York State Court of 16 Appeals: “When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under 17 § 200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must 18 be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE 19 may pick?” Id. at 698-99. The Court of Appeals has answered, concluding that the 20 required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 200.6(h)(4) represent 21 alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the 22 described levels of management needs and disabilities. Cruz v. Banks, --- N.E.3d -- 2  24-1147 Cruz v. Banks 1 -, No. 1, 2026 WL 436354, at *4 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2026). In light of that decision, 2 we affirm the judgment of the district court. 3 DISCUSSION 4 “[T]he role of the federal courts in reviewing state educational decisions 5 under the IDEA is circumscribed.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 6 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation modified). Accordingly, “a court must defer to the 7 SRO’s decision on matters requiring educational expertise unless it concludes that 8 the decision was inadequately reasoned.” R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 9 167, 189 (2d Cir. 2012). 10 Cruz argues that the June 2021 individualized education program (IEP) 11 placed O.F. in a 12:1:4 classroom in violation of § 200.6(h)(4). 12 But as t