Moonsammy v. Banks

Background

Cindy and Kemraj Moonsammy are the parents of A.M., a seven-year-old child with severe developmental and physical disabilities. They believed that the New York City Department of Education’s educational plan did not meet A.M.’s needs, including because it did not provide for a one-to-one nurse. They enrolled A.M. at the private International Institute for the Brain, known as iBrain, and pursued administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In a 2023 decision, State Review Officer Justyn P. Bates found that the Department had failed to provide A.M. with a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, and that iBrain was an appropriate placement. He ordered the Department to pay A.M.’s tuition and transportation expenses, but required reimbursement to the Moonsammys rather than direct payment to iBrain. He did not award nursing services. The Department did not appeal those determinations, while the Moonsammys appealed other parts of the decision in a related case.

The Moonsammys later challenged A.M.’s most recent educational plan for the 2023–24 school year and sought an interim “stay-put” or “pendency” order. The stay-put rule generally requires a disabled child to remain in the current educational placement, at public expense, while an educational dispute is pending. An administrative hearing officer denied the Moonsammys’ request, reasoning that pendency could not be based on an appealed state administrative decision. The Moonsammys then filed this action and moved for a preliminary injunction.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that iBrain was A.M.’s pendency placement. It relied on Second Circuit authority providing that when an administrative officer finds that a parent’s private placement is appropriate and the school district does not appeal that finding, the district consents by operation of law to the private placement. The court concluded that the Department’s appeal position did not prevent the unchallenged portions of the 2023 decision from taking effect. The Moonsammys’ appeal concerned collateral issues, including direct payment, and did not challenge the findings that the Department denied A.M. a FAPE or that iBrain was appropriate.

Because the stay-put rule functions as an automatic preliminary injunction, the court required the Department to fund the services awarded in the 2023 administrative decision: A.M.’s iBrain tuition and transportation to and from school. The funding had to cover expenses dating from the beginning of the 2023–24 school year and continue until the Moonsammys’ challenge to A.M.’s latest educational plan was resolved.

The court rejected the request to include nursing services in pendency. The 2023 administrative decision had not awarded nursing services, and the court stated that pendency could not extend beyond that decision. The court also rejected immediate payment. Under governing Second Circuit precedent, the stay-put rule does not itself require immediate payment unless the parents show that delayed payment threatens the child’s educational placement. The Moonsammys offered no evidence of that harm, and their enrollment agreement with iBrain suspended their payment obligation until a pendency order was issued.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted in part and denied in part the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court declared iBrain to be A.M.’s pendency placement and required the Department to fund her tuition and transportation from the beginning of the 2023–24 school year until the latest educational-plan challenge was resolved. The court did not require funding for nursing services and did not order immediate payment; payments were to be processed through the Department’s ordinary procedures.