E.K. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
E.K. and E.K., individually and on behalf of their minor child, J.A.K. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-11276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In E.K. and E.K. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Schofield awarded plaintiffs $67,605.40 and denied the Department’s summary-judgment motion.
E.K. and E.K. and their minor child, J.A.K., received a $67,605.40 judgment, while the New York City Department of Education was denied summary judgment and required to pay the awarded amounts.
What happened
E.K. and E.K., J.A.K.’s parents, sued the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act after administrative decisions required reimbursement of education-related expenses. The Department later reimbursed the expenses except for $760.40 in credit-card processing fees, and the parties dismissed the claims challenging the administrative decisions and the claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
The parents sought reimbursement of the administrative fees, prejudgment interest on delayed reimbursements, and $96,796.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. A magistrate judge recommended awarding the administrative fees and $66,845 in attorneys’ fees and costs, but no prejudgment interest. The parents objected to the denial of interest and to the hourly rate used for their federal-court work.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield overruled the objections and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted the parents’ summary-judgment motion in part, denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment for $67,605.40, including $760.40 in administrative fees, $36,308 in fees from the administrative proceedings, $30,132 in fees for the federal case, and $405 in costs.
The detailed version
- E.K. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION · No. 1:23-cv-11276
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
J.A.K. is a child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). J.A.K.’s parents filed an administrative complaint alleging that the New York City Department of Education failed to provide J.A.K. with a free appropriate public education during several school years and failed to meet its duty to identify children who may need special-education services. An impartial hearing officer ordered reimbursement for certain out-of-pocket education expenses, and a state review officer ordered reimbursement of additional expenses.
The parents submitted invoices totaling $104,347.90 and later submitted invoices for another $7,050. The Department ultimately reimbursed all expenses except $760.40 in administrative fees, described as credit-card processing fees. The parents received a final reimbursement check for $86,312.50 on August 7, 2024. The parties later stipulated to dismissal of the parents’ challenge to the administrative decisions and their claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Report and Recommendations
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parents sought $760.40 in administrative fees, prejudgment interest on the reimbursements, and $96,796.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended granting the parents’ motion in part, denying the Department’s motion, awarding the $760.40 administrative-fee amount, and awarding $66,845 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The parents filed objections.
Prejudgment Interest
The court overruled the parents’ objection to the recommendation against prejudgment interest. It explained that prejudgment interest may be awarded when necessary to fully compensate an IDEA plaintiff, but agreed that interest was not necessary here because the Department had reimbursed the parents in full except for the administrative fees and the overall relief was adequate. The court also agreed that the payment delays, although troubling, were not unusually prolonged under the circumstances described in the opinion.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court also overruled the parents’ objection to the $360 hourly rate for their federal-court work. The recommendation used a $400 hourly rate for work in the administrative proceedings and a $360 rate for federal work because a significant part of the federal litigation concerned the fee request. The recommendation also applied a 25% reduction to the hours billed for the federal litigation, a reduction the parents did not challenge, and an additional 10% reduction in the applicable rates. The court held that the $360 rate and the combined reductions produced a reasonable fee award.
Disposition
Judge Schofield adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It awarded judgment to the parents in the total amount of $67,605.40: $760.40 for administrative fees charged by Leap Years, $36,308 for legal fees from the administrative proceedings, $30,132 for fees incurred in the federal civil action, and $405 in costs. The court directed the Clerk to close the motions and the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.