C.S. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

The action initially involved 27 students and their parents. Seven student plaintiffs remained: S.A., Y.F.2, M.C., R.C., G.E., D.G.F., and T.I. Each student attended Reach for the Stars (RFTS), a private school specializing in educating children with autism. The parents had filed administrative proceedings seeking funding for tuition and related services after placing the students at RFTS.

Before the 2021–2022 school year, RFTS operated through RFTS-Learning Center (RFTS-LC) under a tuition-based model. Beginning with that school year, services were provided through RFTS-Learning and Development (RFTS-LD) under a fee-for-services model. The change substantially increased the amounts charged. The central dispute was whether prior administrative decisions, pendency agreements, or pendency orders required the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to fund the students’ attendance at RFTS-LD.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the pendency, or “stay-put,” rule generally requires a child to remain in the last agreed educational placement while a dispute is pending. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were required to pay the RFTS charges under administrative decisions and agreements. The defendants argued that the relevant placement was RFTS-LC, not RFTS-LD, and that they had paid or were prepared to process amounts supported by the required invoices and documentation.

The four students whose placement was disputed

For S.A., the court held that the pendency placement changed when the parents contracted with RFTS-LD for a fee-for-services program at substantially higher cost. The relevant agreements identified RFTS-LC, and a state review officer had determined that RFTS-LC was the placement. The court therefore held that S.A. had no pendency entitlement at RFTS-LD for the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 school years.

For Y.F.2, the relevant pendency agreement also identified RFTS-LC. The court held that the placement changed when the parents contracted with RFTS-LD at substantially higher cost. The court additionally found that the parents had not proved that RFTS-LD was an appropriate placement. Y.F.2 therefore had no pendency entitlement at RFTS-LD for the 2022–2023 school year.

For M.C., a state review officer had determined that the change to the fee-for-services program did not create a pendency entitlement at RFTS-LD. The court followed that decision and held that M.C.’s last agreed placement was RFTS-LC. M.C. therefore had no pendency entitlement at RFTS-LD for the 2022–2023 school year.

For R.C., an administrative pendency order stated that the change from a tuition-based model to an hourly services model substantially altered the placement. The court held that R.C.’s last agreed placement was RFTS-LC and that R.C. had no pendency entitlement at RFTS-LD for the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 school years.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment as to S.A., Y.F.2, M.C., and R.C.

The three students with disputed payment amounts

The parties agreed that G.E., D.G.F., and T.I. had pendency placements at RFTS-LD for the relevant school years. They disagreed about whether the DOE had paid all amounts owed. The defendants said they had paid the invoices they received and that additional documentation or invoices were missing for some periods. The plaintiffs claimed additional amounts were due.

Because the parties had not submitted enough payment information for the court to determine whether payments were missing, the court found genuine disputes of material fact. It denied the motion for summary judgment as to G.E., D.G.F., and T.I.

Declaratory judgment and other requested relief

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendants violated their rights and that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties. The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of future harm, which was required for a declaratory judgment. The court therefore denied the motion for declaratory judgment.

The court did not award prejudgment or post-judgment interest because it had not entered judgment for the plaintiffs. It also declined to award attorneys’ fees because the court had ruled in the defendants’ favor and had not awarded judgment to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought sanctions based on the court’s inherent authority, arguing that the defendants had prolonged the litigation and lacked a legitimate defense. The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided clear and convincing evidence of bad faith. It denied the motion for sanctions.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion in full. This included denial of summary judgment as to all seven remaining students, denial of declaratory judgment, denial of the requested equitable remedies and attorneys’ fees, and denial of sanctions. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the parties were directed to appear for a conference on April 16, 2025.