Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.MixedFiled June 18, 2024

de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-01865
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
16
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Engelmayer denied motions as moot for O.F. and A.D., granted DOE's motion for A.N., and ordered briefing for R.Z.

Who this affects

The ruling affected the parents and children seeking stay-put funding, the four students identified as O.F., A.N., A.D., and R.Z., and the New York City Department of Education. The court treated the O.F. and A.D. disputes as moot, ruled for the Department on A.N.’s claims, and left the amount and scope of some R.Z. payments for further briefing.

What happened

In de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education, parents sought payment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s “stay-put” rule for their children’s placement at iBRAIN during the 2021–2022 extended school year. By the time of the motions, disputes remained concerning four students identified as O.F., A.N., A.D., and R.Z.

The court denied the summary-judgment motions concerning O.F. and A.D. as moot because the New York City Department of Education said it had processed the payments at issue. It granted the Department’s motion concerning A.N., ruling that funding obligations began when the administrative complaint was treated as filed on July 8, 2021, and that the claimed costs from that date had been paid.

For R.Z., Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held that the operative order covered nursing and transportation services as well as tuition, but ordered limited supplemental briefing to determine the amount owed. The court also required documentation and further submissions about whether transportation costs were limited to days R.Z. attended school.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:22-cv-01865
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
June 18, 2024

Background

Eighteen parents representing 12 children sued the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor in his official capacity. They sought funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s pendency, or “stay-put,” provision for the children’s placement at the International Institute for the Brain during the 2021–2022 extended school year. The parties eventually narrowed the dispute to four students: O.F., A.N., A.D., and R.Z.

The stay-put provision generally requires a school district to maintain a child’s current educational placement, at public expense, while an administrative or judicial proceeding under the Act is pending. The parties disputed the Department’s remaining payment obligations for tuition, transportation, and nursing services.

O.F. and A.D.

The parents claimed outstanding transportation and nursing costs for O.F. and transportation costs for A.D. The Department represented that it had processed the disputed payments in March 2024, and the plaintiffs did not meaningfully dispute those representations. The court therefore concluded that the disputes concerning the claimed funds had become moot.

The court’s conclusion was that the summary-judgment motions concerning O.F. and A.D. were denied as moot. The opinion also stated that delays in reimbursement did not create a viable claim in this litigation because there was no claim that the delays interfered with the students’ legally required education during the relevant school year.

A.N.

The remaining dispute for A.N. concerned whether the Department’s funding obligation began on July 7 or July 8, 2021. The administrative complaint was emailed at 6:57 p.m. on July 7. Because the applicable office rules treated complaints received after business hours as filed on the next business day, the complaint was treated as filed on July 8.

The court held that the stay-put obligation begins when the administrative complaint is filed, not automatically at the start of the school year. It therefore held that the Department’s obligation for A.N. began on July 8, 2021. Because the Department had paid the tuition and transportation costs accruing on or after that date, the court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion as to A.N.

R.Z.

For R.Z., the parents claimed $3,452.39 in additional tuition, along with nursing and transportation costs. The court could not determine from the parties’ submissions whether any tuition remained unpaid. The parents asserted a balance but did not show the calculation and supporting documents; the Department asserted that it had paid the full amount it understood to be owed but did not explain how it calculated that amount. The court ordered expedited submissions on the tuition issue.

The court separately addressed whether R.Z.’s operative pendency order covered only tuition or also nursing and transportation. That order adopted R.Z.’s educational placement from an earlier unappealed administrative decision. The earlier decision referred to tuition, transportation, and related services, and described services that included nursing and special transportation.

The court held that the operative pendency order incorporated those associated services. It therefore ruled that the Department was required to fund R.Z.’s educational placement as described in the earlier decision, including nursing and transportation services. The court did not determine the dollar amount owed for those services. It directed the parties to meet and confer and ordered further briefing, including on whether transportation reimbursement covered all transportation costs or only costs for days when R.Z. actually attended school.

Disposition

The court denied the summary-judgment motions as moot concerning O.F. and A.D., granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion concerning A.N., and ordered limited supplemental briefing concerning R.Z. The court set deadlines for the parties’ letter-motions and stated that it would resolve the remaining R.Z. issues after receiving them.

The authoritative version

Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.