M.K. v. The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New…

Background

M.K., E.K.’s grandmother and legal guardian, sued the New York City education defendants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). She alleged that defendants denied E.K. a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, by failing to implement E.K.’s December 2024 individualized education program (IEP). That IEP recommended placement in a New York State Education Department (NYSED)-approved residential nonpublic school.

E.K. had been out of school since November 2024 and had reported behavioral and mental-health problems. After several approved residential schools rejected E.K. or declined to proceed because she would not participate in screening interviews, Moonridge Academy agreed to admit her without an interview. M.K. asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring defendants to fund Moonridge tuition and transportation while M.K.’s administrative appeal remained pending.

An impartial hearing officer had found that the Department denied E.K. a FAPE by failing to implement the December 2024 IEP and identify a physical location where it could be carried out. The hearing officer nevertheless found Moonridge inappropriate because it was not an approved placement, the Department disputed that an approved placement could not be found, M.K. allegedly had not cooperated with screening, and M.K. had not shown that Moonridge would provide the IEP’s required services. M.K. appealed that decision, and the appeal remained pending.

Court’s analysis

The court considered M.K.’s request under the IDEA’s “stay-put” provision, which generally requires a school district to maintain the child’s current educational placement during an administrative dispute. The December 2024 IEP identified that placement as an NYSED-approved nonpublic residential school. The court ruled that E.K. was not entitled to stay-put placement at Moonridge because the parties did not dispute that Moonridge was not NYSED-approved. The court also ruled that M.K. could not unilaterally place E.K. at Moonridge and then use the stay-put provision to require defendants to pay for it.

The court stated that E.K. nevertheless remained entitled to a publicly funded residential placement consistent with the December 2024 IEP, and that defendants had not yet identified that placement. The court explained that defendants retained authority to decide how to provide the agreed-upon educational program, so long as they acted in good faith, including how to arrange E.K.’s participation in interviews. The court reminded defendants that they remained obligated to identify and fund E.K.’s stay-put placement.

M.K. alternatively sought direct or prospective payment for Moonridge under the IDEA’s equitable-relief provision. The court ruled that this request was not yet administratively exhausted because M.K.’s appeal remained pending. The court stated that exhaustion generally requires a final, unappealed administrative decision and that M.K. had not shown that an exception applied. The court also concluded that it could not order prospective funding for Moonridge because Moonridge was not an approved school and M.K. had not asked the court to determine whether Moonridge otherwise satisfied the requirements for an appropriate private placement.

Disposition

The court denied M.K.’s motion without prejudice. The court separately stated that M.K.’s request for prospective funding was denied. It directed the parties to confer and submit a letter by December 18, 2025, addressing whether the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center had accepted E.K., whether defendants had applied to other out-of-state schools, whether the parties could agree on an NYSED-approved residential placement that could serve as E.K.’s stay-put placement, and whether M.K. proposed another qualifying placement. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.