Niagara Falls board hears update on long‑running "Maestro" school‑funding litigation

Superintendent Mark Lohrey told the board the Niagara Falls City School District has been part of the Maestro litigation since about 2008 and that the district has contributed more than $650,000 from the general fund toward legal costs.

Lohrey said the district is one of eight small‑city districts that brought the suit contesting New York State’s implementation of foundation aid and argued the funding formula had not produced resources aligned with student need. He summarized the stakes: “the district has been involved in this case since back in 2008,” and introduced outside advisers and attorneys to provide a timeline and answer board questions.

Bill Lynch, a former superintendent and longtime small‑city schools advocate, reviewed the case’s legal background and framed it in the context of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity precedents. Lynch described the test courts use—(1) student outputs, (2) adequacy of inputs such as teachers and services, and (3) a causal link between funding and inadequate inputs—and explained why plaintiffs contend the state’s formula and implementation have systematically shortchanged high‑need districts.

District counsel and outside counsel outlined the case history: repeated rulings and remands between the state Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, a May 2021 Appellate Division finding that identified a constitutional violation and remanded for a remedy phase, and the state’s subsequent budgetary responses. Attorneys said briefs in the current appellate cycle were due Nov. 17 and that oral argument is expected late winter with a typical Appellate Division timeline that could produce a decision by late spring (plaintiffs’ counsel estimated late spring 2026 as a target). They cautioned that, depending on the decision, further appeals to the Court of Appeals remain possible.

On potential remedies and amounts, Lohrey reported the district’s commissioned professional judgment study shows Niagara Falls could be entitled to an additional $56,533,048 if the plaintiffs prevail. Counsel explained that even if a court orders a remedy, funding implementation generally requires action by the governor and the Legislature; the courts can order the state to determine and fund necessary inputs, but appropriations remain a legislative and executive responsibility.

Board members pressed attorneys on litigation expenses and future district contributions. Lohrey confirmed the district’s historical contributions total roughly $650,000 and said several participating districts have recently stopped making payments because of “financial fatigue.” Board members asked whether a short, capped additional payment could be approved if the litigation appears near its end; attorneys said they would relay that question to lead counsel and provide cost estimates.

The presenters said plaintiffs’ aims include having a court direct a professional‑judgment remedy to specify inputs—staffing, intervention services, program time and related costs—and then require the state to fund those inputs. Counsel stressed the process is complex, that the state’s prior partial funding did not follow the formula plaintiffs rely on, and that implementation could require both further judicial steps and legislative appropriation.

The update concluded with an agreement to compile written answers to board questions about timing, costs and next steps and to return with follow‑up information the board can use to weigh any additional district contributions to litigation.