Vouchers Case Rebuffed by Appeals Court

A mother of five who says she shouldn't have to send her children to constitutionally inadequate New York City public schools — and who wants the state to pay to send them to private school instead — has been denied her day in court a second time, her lawyer said.

Today, an appellate court is refusing to allow Dianne Payne and her lawyer, Eric Grannis, a chance to make oral arguments in front of a panel of judges as they appeal a lower court judge's decision to dismiss her case without a hearing.

Ms. Payne is seeking reimbursement from the state for the money it spends to send her two youngest children, Daquasia and Rayshawn, to public middle school in Queens while the city waits to receive extra education funds won last year during the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, which successfully argued that the New York City public schools don't provide a constitutionally adequate education. She said she would use the money to send her children to private school instead.

"They won't even give this woman a chance to stand before the court and see the people who are judging the validity of her constitutional claims," he said. "Usually you get in the same room … and get a chance to look them in the eye."

The latest setback in the case comes more than a year after Ms. Payne first submitted a motion to join her case to that of the Campaign For Fiscal Equity lawsuit and was denied. Ms. Payne's case, if successful, could set a precedent allowing for implementation of a wider voucher system in the state.

Mr. Grannis said he was hoping that this time he would be able to appear with his client in front of the court to argue her case, but a panel of judges in the state Supreme Court's appellate division in the First Department has denied his request. Instead, the panel of judges will make a decision in her case based on legal briefs submitted by lawyers for the two sides, Mr. Grannis and the state attorney general's office.

The court says the judges reviewed several requests made by Mr. Grannis to stand in front of them, and the court clerk, Catherine Wolfe, said the decision was reached "as an exercise of discretion not to allow oral argument."

Ms. Payne said she was unfazed in her optimism that the appellate court will rule in her favor, however.

"I think it's interesting that none of the judges who have heard the case have heard from me," she said. "Hopefully presenting the paperwork will get me my day in court. … I don't see this as the end."