Mendez v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos and The New York City Department of Education

Background

This is an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act case concerning the 2025–26 school year. The opinion states that an earlier related case between Mendez and the New York City Department of Education concerns the 2024–25 school year.

On July 15, 2025, Mendez moved for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued while a case continues. She sought declarations that:

- A.C.’s temporary educational placement for the 2025–26 school year was iBrain; - the City had to pay transportation costs under the transportation agreement with the parents and Sisters Travel and Transportation Services LLC; and - the City had to pay late fees charged by iBrain or Sisters Travel as part of A.C.’s temporary placement.

Mendez filed the court case even though she had already begun an administrative proceeding seeking the same relief. A hearing on the placement issues had been scheduled for September 3, 2025.

Administrative ruling and issues remaining

When the parties appeared for the preliminary-injunction hearing, the court learned that an impartial hearing officer had issued an order that same day. The hearing officer determined that A.C.’s temporary placement was at iBrain and rejected the City’s argument that iBrain’s substantial tuition increase had ended that placement. The hearing officer also determined that transportation for purposes of the temporary placement was through Sisters Travel, rejecting the City’s argument that it could provide adequate transportation at a lower cost.

The City acknowledged that the administrative order made all but one issue in the preliminary-injunction motion moot, meaning that those issues no longer required a court ruling in this motion. The City represented that it intended to comply with the order. The City planned to continue disputing whether iBrain remained an appropriate placement despite the tuition increase and whether the City could provide transportation itself rather than pay a private contractor. Judge McMahon stated that those issues were not ready for federal-court review because there had not yet been a due-process hearing or an appeal to a state review officer.

Late-fee dispute

The remaining issue was whether the City had to pay late fees charged by iBrain or Sisters Travel when the City did not pay tuition or transportation costs during the administrative process. Mendez argued that the late fees were included in the agreements requiring the City to make direct payments under the temporary-placement order. The City disputed that interpretation.

The opinion states that the same late-fee liability question was pending in the earlier related case. That case included a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a legal issue without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. The parties agreed that the late-fee question was purely legal. Judge McMahon directed the parties to finish briefing that motion so the court could address the issue in the context of permanent injunctive and declaratory relief rather than temporary relief.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon consolidated what remained of the preliminary-injunction motion—the late-fee issue—with the pending summary-judgment motion in the earlier related case. The court stated that both matters would be decided in one opinion. This order did not decide whether the City is liable for the late fees, and the opinion does not state that the preliminary-injunction motion was granted or denied.