Zayas v. Aviles-Ramos
Rosa Zayas, as Parent and Natural Guardian of R.Z., and Rosa Zayas, Individually; Lizette Martinez, as Parent and Natural Guardian of H.G.M., and Lizette Martinez, Individually; Bintu Kabba, as Parent and Natural Guardian of O.F., and Bintu Kabba, Individually; Maylene Otero, as Parent and Natural Guardian of K.R.-O., and Maylene Otero, 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-07561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Rosa Zayas v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Torres denied expedited-hearing relief, declared iBRAIN the students’ placement, and denied funding relief.
The ruling directly affected the four students—R.Z., H.G.M., O.F., and K.R.-O.—their parent plaintiffs, and the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor. It recognized iBRAIN as the students’ pendency placement but did not order the Department to make the requested funding payments or expedite the administrative hearings.
What happened
In Rosa Zayas v. Aviles-Ramos, four parents sued the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They sought faster administrative hearings and orders recognizing iBRAIN as their children’s educational placement while the disputes continued, with the Department paying related costs.
The court denied the request for faster hearings because the parents did not show that the students faced immediate, irreparable harm. It found that two students already had placement orders and that the Department agreed all four students’ last agreed-upon placement was iBRAIN. The court therefore recognized iBRAIN as the pendency placement for the 2025–2026 school year, but found no basis for emergency funding payments because the students’ schooling was not shown to be at risk and payment-related harm could be addressed with money.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the first preliminary-injunction motion and granted in part and denied in part the second. The second motion was granted only to declare iBRAIN the students’ pendency placement; it was denied in all other respects, including the request for funding payments.
The detailed version
- Zayas v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-07561
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs are the parents of four students with disabilities enrolled at the International Academy for the Brain, referred to as iBRAIN. They sued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law requiring schools 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 for the 2025–2026 school year while administrative challenges were pending.
The plaintiffs filed two motions for a preliminary injunction, which is an emergency court order issued before the case is finally decided. The first motion sought an expedited schedule for the state administrative proceedings. The second sought an order establishing iBRAIN as the students’ “pendency” placement and requiring the Department to fund that placement.
Expedited-Hearing Motion
The court denied the first motion. To obtain this type of preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs had to show likely irreparable harm, meaning harm that is imminent and cannot adequately be repaired with money. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that any student was at risk of losing placement at iBRAIN because of the scheduled hearing dates. It also rejected the argument that a possible violation of hearing-related procedural rights, by itself, established irreparable harm.
Pendency Placement
The IDEA’s stay-put, or pendency, provision generally allows a student with a disability to remain in the student’s current educational placement at public expense while administrative or court proceedings continue. The court explained that this protection maintains the educational status quo and does not require the parents to finish their administrative proceedings before seeking enforcement.
R.Z. and K.R.-O. already had pendency orders for the 2025–2026 school year, so the request for a new placement order was moot as to them because the requested relief was already in place. As to the other two students, the court considered the relevant prior placement and noted that the Department did not dispute that all four students’ last agreed-upon placement was at iBRAIN. The court therefore declared that iBRAIN was the students’ pendency placement for the 2025–2026 school year.
Funding Request
The court denied the request for an order requiring the Department to make pendency funding payments. It explained that the stay-put provision automatically protects educational placement but does not automatically require payments. The plaintiffs therefore had to satisfy the traditional preliminary-injunction requirements for emergency funding relief.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. They did not show that the students’ continued enrollment or receipt of educational services at iBRAIN was threatened by alleged nonpayment. Their asserted harm consisted of possible tuition, transportation, and nursing late fees, which the court characterized as monetary and too speculative to support emergency relief. The court also found no showing that the public interest or balance of hardships favored the requested funding order.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied the first motion for a preliminary injunction. She granted in part and denied in part the second motion: the court declared that the students were entitled to pendency placement at iBRAIN for the 2025–2026 school year, but denied the motion in all other respects, including the request for funding payments. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.