Crespo v. Aviles-Ramos

Background

B.T. and V.P. are students with disabilities who attend the International Academy for the Brain, known as iBRAIN. B.T. has attended iBRAIN since the 2022–2023 school year, and V.P. has attended since the 2023–2024 school year. Both students were attending iBRAIN during the 2025–2026 school year. They also had transportation arrangements with Sisters Travel and Transportation Services, LLC. V.P. additionally had nursing services.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the stay-put provision generally requires a school district to maintain and fund a student’s current educational placement while an administrative challenge to the student’s education program is pending. Earlier state administrative decisions found that iBRAIN was an appropriate placement for both students and approved transportation funding. One decision concerning V.P. denied funding for nursing services because the services were considered excessive.

The parents filed new administrative complaints concerning the 2025–2026 school year. Those proceedings were still ongoing. An administrative hearing officer determined that iBRAIN and transportation were V.P.’s current placement for stay-put purposes, but concluded that nursing services were not part of that placement. The parents appealed the nursing-related ruling, and the Department of Education also appealed part of the underlying decision. For B.T., the earlier state review officer decision approving iBRAIN was being challenged in federal court.

The Department of Education was not processing stay-put payments for either student. The parents sought an emergency order requiring payment of outstanding tuition, transportation, and nursing costs, as well as immediate full payment for the rest of the school year.

Legal standards

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Ordinarily, the party seeking one must show a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable balancing of hardships, and that an injunction serves the public interest. A mandatory injunction, which changes the existing situation, requires a stronger showing.

The court explained that the IDEA stay-put provision operates differently from an ordinary preliminary injunction. When it applies, it automatically protects the student’s current educational placement during the pending proceedings. But the provision does not itself guarantee immediate reimbursement or payment, particularly for future costs. Requests for immediate payment are evaluated under the ordinary preliminary-injunction standards.

Court’s analysis

The court held that both students were entitled to stay-put protection because their administrative proceedings for the 2025–2026 school year were incomplete. Their current placement was iBRAIN, including Sisters Travel transportation, because the earlier state review officer decisions had ruled favorably on the parents’ placement and transportation challenges.

For B.T., the court rejected the Department’s argument that the earlier decision could not establish the stay-put placement because it was being challenged. The court relied on federal and New York regulations stating that a state review officer’s decision agreeing with the parents that a change of placement is appropriate is treated as an agreement for stay-put purposes during later appeals. The court also noted that the Second Circuit had approved preliminary relief requiring stay-put payments while an administrative placement decision was under appeal.

For V.P., the court held that the pending appeal concerning nursing services did not suspend the Department’s obligation to fund tuition and transportation. The earlier state review officer decision had established iBRAIN and transportation as the relevant placement, and the Department had not appealed the administrative order identifying that placement. The court therefore treated tuition and transportation as separately enforceable from the unresolved nursing dispute.

The court found that the Department could determine how to provide equivalent stay-put services, but could not refuse to fund the students’ existing placement while offering no alternative placement. The court stated that the Department’s refusal to process any stay-put payments violated its obligation to continue funding the students’ education.

Disposition

The court granted the preliminary-injunction motion in part and denied it in part. It declared iBRAIN the stay-put placement for B.T. and V.P. and required the Department of Education to fund tuition and Sisters Travel transportation from the dates the parents filed their respective administrative complaints until the challenges to the students’ most recent individualized education programs are resolved. The payments were to be processed through the Department’s ordinary procedures.

The court denied the request for immediate and full payment of tuition and transportation for the remainder of the 2025–2026 school year. It explained that stay-put protection does not guarantee immediate payment, does not make the Department responsible for a private school’s financial viability, and does not allow the court to order prospective payments that may not ultimately be owed. The court did not order nursing payments because the plaintiffs had not identified evidence showing that nursing services were part of either student’s current educational placement.