Otero v. Aviles-Ramos
Maylene Otero, individually and as parent and natural guardian of K.R.O. v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, et al.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-02773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Maylene Otero v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, Judge Engelmayer denied Otero’s motion and granted the Department’s motion, ruling that reimbursement records were inadequate.
Maylene Otero and K.R.O. cannot obtain Department reimbursement for K.R.O.’s 2024–2025 transportation and nursing expenses based on the submitted records. The New York City Department of Education prevailed on those reimbursement claims. Otero’s requests for late fees and interest and attorneys’ fees were denied, while the Department retained the opportunity to seek sanctions against Otero’s counsel.
What happened
Maylene Otero v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos concerns whether the New York City Department of Education had to reimburse transportation and nursing costs connected to K.R.O.’s 2024–2025 placement at iBrain under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Earlier administrative decisions required Otero to provide records showing that K.R.O. actually used those services before the Department had to pay.
Otero submitted two provider affidavits and an iBrain attendance sheet. The court found that these materials stated only that services were provided on 223 days and did not identify the specific dates on which K.R.O. used transportation or nursing services. The attendance sheet also counted excused absences and home services and did not establish that either provider performed services on the listed days.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Otero’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Department’s cross-motion, ruling that the Department did not have to reimburse the transportation or nursing expenses for that school year. The court also denied Otero’s requests for late fees and interest and attorneys’ fees, and found her request for a pendency-placement declaration abandoned and moot; the Department may still seek sanctions against Otero’s counsel.
The detailed version
- Otero v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-02773
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
This Individuals with Disabilities Education Act case concerned a narrow reimbursement issue. K.R.O., a 17-year-old child with significant neurological and physical disabilities, attended the International Institute for the Brain, or iBrain, during the 2024–2025 extended school year. An impartial hearing officer found that the Department had denied K.R.O. a free appropriate public education and directed the Department to pay iBrain tuition, transportation fees, and nursing-service fees. But the hearing officer required Maylene Otero first to provide specified records showing that K.R.O. actually used the transportation and nursing services, including bills, affidavits, invoices, and dates of service.
A state review officer affirmed those documentation requirements and ruled that the Department had to fund K.R.O.’s iBrain placement. Neither side appealed that decision. In this federal case, Otero sought an order requiring payment for transportation and nursing services without providing the required proof. The court previously denied her request for immediate payment and denied reconsideration.
Summary-judgment motions
Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows that no material fact requires a trial and one side is entitled to judgment under the law. The parties agreed that the central issue was whether Otero’s documentation satisfied the earlier administrative decision.
Otero submitted:
- An affidavit from Chesky Jacobowitz, B&H Healthcare Services Inc.’s chief operating officer, stating that nursing services were provided under a contract for 223 school days and identifying the annual fee. - An affidavit from Christine Soifer, a member of Sisters Travel and Transportation Services, LLC, stating that transportation services were provided under a contract for 223 school days and identifying the annual fee. - An iBrain attendance sheet showing 223 days marked “Y,” where “Y” meant “present or excused absence or home services.”
The court held that these materials did not satisfy the requirement to show the specific dates on which K.R.O. used the transportation and nursing services. The affidavits merely stated that the services were provided on 223 days and did not identify those days. The attendance sheet did not cure that problem because its “Y” notation included excused absences and home services, situations in which transportation and nursing services would not have been reimbursable under the earlier decisions. The sheet also did not establish that B&H or Sisters provided services on the listed days.
Rulings
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Otero’s motion for summary judgment on the transportation and nursing claim and granted the Department’s cross-motion. The court ruled definitively that the Department was not required to reimburse Otero for transportation or nursing expenses related to the 2024–2025 extended school year.
The court also denied Otero’s request for contractual late fees and interest because the Department was not required to pay the underlying service fees. It found that Otero’s request for a declaration about K.R.O.’s pendency placement was abandoned and moot. The court denied Otero’s motion for attorneys’ fees because she had not prevailed.
The Department asked the court to keep the case open so it could seek sanctions against Otero’s counsel, but it had not clearly made a sanctions motion or provided enough analysis for the court to decide whether sanctions were warranted. The court gave the Department one week to file such a motion. If it did so, Otero’s counsel would have one week to respond; otherwise, the court intended to direct the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.