concluded that the strong evidence of K.C.’s pervasive drug abuse outweighed the evidence showing that, rather than the drugs, it was K.C.’s emotional disturbance which adversely affected his educational performance. That it is not unprecedented or, indeed, uncommon for the problems of drug abuse and emotional disturbance to co-exist (and exacerbate or beget one another) neither relieves.the Plaintiffs of their obligation to show that it was the emotional disturbance which adversely affected educational performance nor renders incorrect the decision of the IHO that the weight of the evidence showed that it was drugs rather than emotional disability behind K.C.’s academic decline. See, e.g., P.K. ex rel. P.K. v. Bedford Cent. School Dist., 569 F.Supp.2d 371, 386 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court will not reverse the
holding that pendent jurisdiction allows review of an unappealable order if it is inextricably intertwined with an appealable one  holding that a party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot recover for emotional disturbance alone recognizing that substance abuse and emotional disturbance need not be inextricably intertwined holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment