Tobuck v. David C. Banks
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-01356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Kelly Tobuck v. Banks, Judge Schofield granted Tobuck’s summary-judgment motion, requiring payment or reimbursement of K.T.’s tuition and transportation.
Kelly Tobuck and her child, K.T., prevailed on enforcement of the 2021 administrative education decision. The New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor, must pay or reimburse the tuition and transportation costs covered by that decision, along with the uncontested services and assistive technology.
What happened
Kelly Tobuck sued the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks, the Department’s Chancellor, to enforce a 2021 administrative decision concerning education for her child, K.T. That decision awarded compensatory education and required payment for certain services, tuition, and transportation.
The parties filed competing requests for summary judgment. They disagreed about whether the 2021 decision covered tuition and transportation, particularly because a later evaluation did not mention transportation.
In Kelly Tobuck v. David C. Banks et al., Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Tobuck’s motion and denied the defendants’ motion. The court held that the administrative decision required the defendants to pay or reimburse tuition for three years at iBRAIN and suitable transportation, and also recognized services and assistive technology that the defendants did not dispute.
The detailed version
- Tobuck v. David C. Banks · No. 1:23-cv-01356
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Kelly Tobuck brought this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on behalf of herself and her child, K.T., against the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks in his official capacity as the Department’s Chancellor. K.T. has multiple disabilities, including cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, an intellectual disability, and visual deficits. He had his twenty-first birthday during the 2021–2022 school year.
In 2021, an Impartial Hearing Officer issued a Findings of Fact and Decision (the 2021 FOFD). It found that K.T.’s placement at iBRAIN, a private school, was proper and ordered the defendants to reimburse or fund tuition for the 2020–2021 school year, assistive-technology and communication devices, and suitable transportation to iBRAIN, including a one-to-one paraprofessional for that school year. The decision also awarded compensatory education but required an independent educational evaluation to determine its amount, up to three school years. The defendants did not appeal the 2021 FOFD.
Dr. Isabel A. Rodríguez later evaluated K.T. and recommended that he remain at iBRAIN for three years of compensatory education, with related services, assistive technology, and a paraprofessional. Her evaluation did not mention transportation. In an earlier round of this case, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants in part and allowed Tobuck to amend her complaint to add a claim enforcing the 2021 FOFD.
Parties’ arguments
Tobuck sought an order requiring the defendants to directly pay or reimburse the costs of K.T.’s private educational program at iBRAIN, including tuition, related services, transportation, and assistive technology. The parties agreed that the 2021 FOFD controlled the scope of the compensatory-education award but disagreed about whether it covered tuition and transportation.
The defendants argued that tuition was a remedy distinct from compensatory education and therefore could not be included in the award. They also argued that transportation was not covered because Dr. Rodríguez’s evaluation did not mention it. The defendants conceded that, if the compensatory-education award applied, it would include occupational, physical, vision, speech and language therapies, and assistive technology.
Court’s analysis
Because Tobuck sought to enforce a favorable administrative decision rather than appeal an unfavorable one, the court applied the ordinary summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court interpreted the 2021 FOFD using principles of contract interpretation. It concluded that the decision was unambiguous and delegated to Tobuck’s selected professional the task of determining the amount of compensatory education, subject to a three-year limit. Dr. Rodríguez recommended three years at iBRAIN with related services, paraprofessional support, and assistive technology. The court held that K.T. was entitled to that recommendation, with the defendants paying iBRAIN directly or reimbursing Tobuck.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that tuition could not be part of compensatory education. It also rejected the argument that Dr. Rodríguez’s evaluation displaced the FOFD’s separate transportation requirement. The FOFD expressly required the Department of Education to arrange and fund, or reimburse Tobuck for, suitable transportation for K.T. to attend the private school, including a one-to-one paraprofessional for the 2020–2021 school year.
Disposition
The court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff and denied summary judgment to Defendants. Tobuck is entitled to tuition and transportation costs, as well as services and assistive technology, which were uncontested. The court directed Tobuck to submit an itemized-cost application with supporting documents by September 29, 2025, and allowed the Department of Education to respond by October 20, 2025. The opinion does not state a dollar amount for the costs.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.