Moonsammy v. Aviles-Ramos
Cindy Moonsammy, as Parent and Natural Guardians of A.M., and Cindy Moonsammy Individually; Jose Garzon, as Parent and Natural Guardian of M.G., and Jose Garzon, Individually; Sabine Moise Desir, as Parent and Natural Guardian of M.C.-L, and Sabine Moise Desir, Individually; Leonarda Bautista, as Parent and Natural Guardian of A.A.-B., and Leonarda Bautista, Individually; Veronica Valencia, as Parent and Natural Guardian of A.M., and Veronica Valencia, Individually v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-05923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Moonsammy v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Torres denied the parents’ second request for an expedited administrative hearing injunction.
The ruling directly affected the five parent plaintiffs, their five students, and the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor. It left the students’ iBRAIN pendency placements in place under the circumstances described in the opinion, but did not order an expedited administrative hearing timeline.
What happened
In Cindy Moonsammy, Jose Garzon, Sabine Moise Desir, Leonarda Bautista, and Veronica Valencia v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos and the New York City Department of Education, the parents of five students with disabilities sued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Department to follow certain deadlines in their ongoing administrative proceedings.
The court concluded that the requested injunction addressed claims not included in the complaint, which focused on the students’ educational placements and funding. The court also found no likely irreparable harm because the students were attending iBRAIN under the law’s stay-put protection at public expense, and the parents had not shown that the hearing dates threatened those placements.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the second motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Moonsammy v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-05923
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs are parents of five students with disabilities enrolled at the International Academy for the Brain, referred to as iBRAIN. They brought this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires participating states and school districts to provide eligible students with a free appropriate public education. The parents alleged that the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor failed to identify, implement, and fund the students’ educational placements during the 2025–2026 school year.
The parents filed administrative due-process complaints concerning the students’ education. During those proceedings, the students enrolled at iBRAIN. The court had declared, and the Department agreed, that iBRAIN was the students’ placement protected during the proceedings under the IDEA’s “stay-put” or “pendency” provision. The parents alleged that an impartial hearing officer extended deadlines for complying with required procedures without adequate justification.
The parents’ second motion for a preliminary injunction asked the court to order the Department to follow an expedited timeline for the administrative proceedings. The opinion states that the parents’ first preliminary-injunction motion sought orders concerning the students’ placements and funding, and that the court had granted that motion in part and denied it in part in an earlier order. The court stated that a separate order would address the parents’ motion for reconsideration of that earlier ruling.
Court’s Analysis
A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to prevent specified harm while a case proceeds. The court held that it could not grant an injunction based on claims that were not pleaded in the complaint. The complaint sought declaratory relief and funding for the students’ pendency placements at iBRAIN. The second motion instead challenged deadlines established by the impartial hearing officer and sought an order requiring an expedited administrative schedule. The court found those challenges distinct from the complaint’s allegations about maintaining and funding the students’ placements.
The court also held that the parents had not shown irreparable harm, which means actual and imminent injury that cannot be adequately remedied with money. Because the students were attending iBRAIN at public expense under the pendency provision, they would continue attending while the proceedings continued. The parents presented no evidence that the students risked losing their iBRAIN placements because of the hearing dates. The court stated that a bare procedural violation did not establish irreparable harm.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied the plaintiffs’ second motion for a preliminary injunction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.