M.H. v. New York City Department of Education
M.H., individually and on behalf of S.H., a child with a disability v. New York City Department of Education
- Dale Ho
- 1:23-cv-06714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Dale E. Ho modified a fee recommendation and awarded $58,107.25 in fees plus $679 in costs.
M.H., individually and on behalf of S.H., receives the court-ordered attorney’s-fee and cost award from the New York City Department of Education.
What happened
In M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, M.H. asked the court to award attorney’s fees and costs. A magistrate judge recommended $60,642 in fees and $679 in costs, but both sides objected to parts of that recommendation.
The court rejected M.H.’s objections to the attorneys’ hourly rates and to a 20% reduction in billed hours. The New York City Department of Education sought a larger reduction for work spent litigating the fee request because two underlying administrative proceedings were subject to limits on recoverable fees.
Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the recommendation with a modification, awarding M.H. $53,421 for work on the underlying administrative proceedings, $4,686.25 for work on the fee litigation, and $679 in costs. The total award was $58,107.25 in fees and $679 in costs, with post-judgment interest.
The detailed version
- M.H. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-06714
- Dale E. Ho
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
M.H. moved for attorney’s fees and costs on February 23, 2024. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who recommended an award of $60,642 in fees and $679 in costs, plus post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Both M.H. and the New York City Department of Education objected to portions of the Report and Recommendation. The district court had stayed the case while awaiting a Second Circuit decision, then lifted the stay after the parties reported that the relevant appeals had been resolved or withdrawn and that no new guidance had been issued.
M.H.’s objections
M.H. challenged the hourly rates recommended for attorneys and paralegals, arguing that higher rates had been awarded in other cases and that the Report did not adequately explain some rates. The court rejected those arguments, finding that the Report provided a thorough survey of reasonable rates and adopting its proposed rates after de novo review, meaning the court independently reviewed the challenged portions.
M.H. also challenged the Report’s recommended 20% across-the-board reduction in billed hours. The court upheld that reduction, concluding that a percentage deduction was an appropriate way to remove excess billing and agreeing with the Report’s reasoning about counsel’s continuing representation of the parent. The court also rejected M.H.’s argument that the Report inadequately analyzed the recommended rates.
The Department of Education’s objection
The Department argued that the fee limits in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should also reduce fees for litigating the fee request. The Report had applied the limits to fees connected with two of the three underlying administrative proceedings because the amounts recovered for those proceedings were less than the Department’s earlier settlement offers. The Report had not applied the limits to the separate litigation over fees.
The court stated that it had found no binding authority deciding whether the statutory fee limits apply to fees for litigating fees connected to a fee-limited administrative proceeding. It therefore did not definitively resolve that statutory question. Instead, because M.H. sought fees in one combined application covering three administrative proceedings, two of which were subject to fee limits, the court found that an additional discretionary reduction was warranted. It rejected the Department’s requested 66% reduction as excessive and reduced the fees for the fee litigation by 50%.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the Report with the stated modification. The court ordered that M.H. recover $53,421 in attorney’s fees related to the underlying administrative proceedings, $4,686.25 in attorney’s fees related to the fee litigation, and $679 in costs. The total award was $58,107.25 in fees and $679 in costs. The amounts are subject to post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), and M.H. was directed to submit a proposed judgment within seven days of the order’s publication.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.