M.W. v. New York City Department of Education
- Sidney Stein
- 1:19-cv-00779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In M.W. v. New York City Department of Education, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger ordered emergency IDEA stay-put relief for three students.
The order directly affected the three students identified as J.A., J.R., and D.M., and required the New York City Department of Education to provide specified transportation, therapy, and coordination services.
What happened
M.W., et al. v. New York City Department of Education, et al. concerns three students in New York City's school system whose rights to remain in their required educational placements during ongoing proceedings were allegedly not being implemented. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief on October 10, 2025, and the court held a hearing that day.
The order required the Department of Education to provide specified transportation for J.A. and J.R., including limits on travel time and required staffing or equipment. It also required the Department to authorize occupational and physical therapy for D.M. and to provide speech therapy and a services coordinator, unless it filed an opposition to those last two services by the stated deadline.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued the order based on the evidence, the parties' arguments, and the Department's agreement or non-objection to some relief. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 181.
The detailed version
- M.W. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-00779
- Sidney Stein
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
On October 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an application for a preliminary injunction seeking emergency relief for three students in the New York City school system. The plaintiffs alleged that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) was not implementing the students' rights to remain in their required educational placements while proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were pending. The court held a hearing by Microsoft Teams that afternoon under procedures the parties had agreed to for resolving emergency stay-put issues.
The IDEA's stay-put provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), protects a disabled child's current educational placement during the pendency of IDEA proceedings. The order describes this provision as an automatic preliminary injunction that replaces the usual preliminary-injunction factors with an absolute rule favoring the status quo. Based on the written submissions and hearing evidence, the court stated that the plaintiffs had shown each student's stay-put rights and the DOE's failure to implement them.
Relief Ordered
The court ordered the following:
- J.A.: By October 14, 2025, the DOE had to arrange transportation with a paraprofessional in a minivan carrying no more than two children, with travel limited to 60 minutes. This requirement applied even if the minivan lacked a harness. By October 24, 2025, the DOE had to provide J.A. with a properly fitting harness and train the van staff to use it. - J.R.: By October 15, 2025, the DOE had to provide air-conditioned transportation with a car seat, a one-to-one paraprofessional, travel limited to 60 minutes, and no more than one other student. The other student could not exhibit maladaptive or disruptive behavior. - D.M.: By October 14, 2025, the DOE had to issue authorizations for occupational and physical therapy. By October 24, 2025, it had to provide speech therapy and a services coordinator. If the DOE opposed either of those two requirements, it had to file its opposition by October 15, 2025.
The order stated that it was based on the plaintiffs' evidence, the parties' arguments, and the DOE's agreement or non-objection to certain aspects of the relief. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 181.
Disposition
The court ordered the DOE to implement the specified stay-put services and transportation requirements. The order does not separately state that the preliminary-injunction motion was "granted" or "granted in part"; it states the mandatory relief directly. The order was signed by Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.