yes your honor please proceed yes may please the court the central issue in this matter is did the new york city department of education have a legal obligation to provide pendency services to the student towards the students the order of the lower court denying appellants from an injunction motion which was wholly premised on the factual basis that deal we did with obligation and then the court altered it department of education which involves facts that are you know essentially identical here are the same kind of transfer that was made from one to laterally by the parents from one school to another that they asserted provide substantially similar services and because the services were allegedly substantially similar they allege they repent and obligation in the city during this kind of pendency period to to fund this different setting and you asserted in your letter brief that there were factual distinctions here but i was unable to identify anything that was a meaningful multiple look look asians was based upon a factual premise that deal we offered i hope which is another nonpublic school other than the student school with a student was attending  or fails to provide tennessee services to the trucks that are the facts that we have here and that's what i'm trying to impart to the court that i thought you were you were you were you were claiming that because of changes at the school that the student w intending it no longer substantially conform to what had been expected by everyone and therefore it was kind of defacto no longer available even though the jury was relevant because if the student at the pens had placed the student in i hope that also would have been a unilateral placement and which would require a ten day notice for the parents to have have sent to the district and that's what they did here  and if they do not then that leaves the parent in a precarious situation of having to use some help and that's what's being referred to in sixty five of the decision so it is with regard to the fact with regard to th in this case that is not the case there was never any factual finding that i hope was offered or any other school was offered by the district for the parents the services of the student and there's an affirmative obligation on the part of the what they so they do we actually contested against hope and they lost because the parents want at the administrative hearing level and then that they can't because they want that became the baseline the program offer a school i hope or anywhere up for again because this is has the right to choose the location it could have been it could have been somewhere else but they didn't take any steps to provide the seed for the students at any school and therefore that leftest the parents in the position of having to pay your last place the student and they provided a ten day notice at which point in time the district could have chored either by saying well you need to go to i hope previously acceptable is the one that the school district can say the child to continue to be educated that they're stricken and i think it imagine mr mr lee could you imagine those circumstances which setting that was previously acceptable because of a massive departure of staff for example becomes acceptable and a new kind of pendency placement is required i guess possible right a school could basically shut down dependency placement in the st instance really will reside with the school district one it's the test structure at the point and you point it out to as the core pointed out the way that tendency is litigated the school district this is public funds that are subject to recoup once that decision is made and so given that structural imbalance makes sense for the school district in the st instance to make that determination and i'm not a lawyer and you ok well i think your question was is it because their situation the parents and the department are situated differently and yes that's correct the fact that the parent can still receive the payout pendency in the st instance when that right has always realize that the school district doesn't make a lot of sense and if you want to know time is short that you want to address the footnote sixty five to a sion which council now duties on to say that it is a  educational program can be provided and if the school refuses to engage with the placement is truly unavailable at the school has for example shut down parents and then he can jump to police and this and the panel  explained thank you for raising that yes they want to get that there is no distinction in both cases they the parent and the child want made a placement at i hope the faith  that they would continue to pay for i think going forward so there is no basis to distinguish on that either it is exactly the thing and if there is any doubt i would urge the town to look at the brief that we filed in the underlying cases and you judge on the district level several judges agreed with us was on availability it was not necessary to prove this is the st instance where it was shown that actually that was the case and the key to understanding that isn't a seventy and a seventy seven  of the joint appendix where the judge judge nathan states that there was an attempted veto of the school district's choice of location but on reconsideration she understood that she was wrong factually that there was no choice made by the school that there was no obligation fulfilled by the district and so she stated simply that there was no obligation on the part of the district to provide propensity services where the student which is wrong as a matter of we was obligated to provide a thank you very much i think we have the arguments will reserve decision thank you thank you