OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs K.C. and M.T. (“Plaintiff Parents”), and their son J.C.T. (“J.C.T.”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring this Action alleging that Defendant Chappaqua Central School District (“Defendant” or the “District”) denied J.C.T. a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) at Bell Middle School (“Bell”) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years, in violation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415 et seq., New York Education Law §§4401, 4404, 4410, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504″), 29 U.S.C. §794 et seq., and discriminated against J.C.T. in violation of Section 504 and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12132. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 52).) Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted. I. Background The general factual and procedural background of this Action has been discussed in detail by the Court in its previous Opinions & Orders on this case, so the Court assumes familiarity with the general issues in dispute. (See Op. & Order on Def.’s Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (“2017 Op.”) 2-7; Op. & Order on Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. on the Statute of Limitations (“2018 Op.”) 2-23 (Dkt. Nos. 40, 88).) The Court supplements certain factual issues and the procedural background below and will address other facts as needed throughout this Opinion & Order. The Court refers to the Parties’ Rule 56.1 Statements and Counterstatements and underlying exhibits to inform its understanding of the facts. (See Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. (“Def.’s 56.1″); Pls.’ Counterstatement to Def.’s 56.1 (“Pls.’ Counter 56.1″); Pls.’ 56.1 Statement of Additional Facts in Opp’n to Mot. (“Pls.’ 56.1″); Def.’s Counterstatement to Pls.’ 56.1 (“Def.’s Counter 56.1″); Def.’s Reply to Pls.’ Counter 56.1 (“Def.’s Reply 56.1″) (Dkt. Nos. 140, 142, 143, 153, 154).)1 A. Factual Background Class Attendance One of the issues highlighted in the Parties’ papers is the question of J.C.T. allegedly missing a significant amount of class time at school. Accordingly, the Court summarizes some of the undisputed and disputed facts on this issue. J.C.T. testified that his disabilities, which include early onset bipolar disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), (see Def.’s 56.1 17; Pls.’ 56.1 1), affected his ability to remain in class during the 2011-12 school year by triggering him to leave some of his classes when he was asked to do classwork, (Def.’s 56.1 18). J.C.T.’s Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) for the 2011-12 school specifically recommended that J.C.T. take breaks from the classroom, especially as “levels of frustration escalate or fatigue sets in.” (Aff. of Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) Chairperson Elizabeth Wright (“Wright”) (“Wright Aff.”) Ex. K (“Feb. 15, 2012 CSE Meeting Notes and IEP”) 10 (Dkt. No. 127-11).)2 During the 2011-12 school year, J.C.T. commonly left classrooms after the instructional portion had ended and just before he was required to do group or individual schoolwork. (Def.’s 56.1
19, 21.) J.C.T. would frequently go to the bathroom, the nurse’s office, Guidance Counselor Jason Sclafani’s (“Sclafani”) office, or Special Education Teacher Clint Keegan’s (“Keegan”) classroom. (Id. 22.) When J.C.T. left the classroom during the 2011-12 school year, his teaching assistant would either follow him or search for him at his usual locations. (Id. 25.)3 Although Defendant contends that, during his absences, J.C.T. would often do make-up work or schoolwork with Keegan or a teaching assistant, Plaintiffs, pointing repeatedly to the same quotes from J.C.T.’s deposition, counter that J.C.T. believed that this “teaching” was “rarely successful” and that he would rarely do the work that was assigned before he left the classroom. (See Pls.’ Counter 56.1
