Arelis Araujo v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

The court had previously issued an order on September 24, 2020, that granted and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The plaintiffs and the New York City Department of Education then each moved for reconsideration of that order.

The dispute involved “pendency” funding under the law’s stay-put provision. That provision generally requires a school district to continue funding the last educational placement agreed upon by the parents and the district until the relevant proceedings are completed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion

The plaintiffs again argued that twenty students were entitled to pendency funding at iBRAIN under what they called an “operative placement” theory. They asserted that some students had attended iBRAIN for several years, but they offered only statements from their attorneys and no supporting evidence. The court held that reconsideration was not a proper way to introduce evidence that was available when the original motion was filed.

The court also held that the proposed evidence would not reasonably be expected to change the earlier result. The plaintiffs did not show that enrollment at iBRAIN matched the last placement agreed upon by the parties. They also did not dispute that some students had agreed-upon services and funding at other schools, that some had no pendency placement, or that the students had been placed at iBRAIN without the Department’s consent.

The plaintiffs argued that a cited Second Circuit decision was factually different because, in that case, parents enrolled their children at iBRAIN after the Department had provided pendency funding at another school. The court rejected that argument as a repeat of an argument already considered. It explained that parents could seek an appropriate order if the Department had failed to make timely pendency determinations, but they could not unilaterally select iBRAIN and then claim automatic funding under the stay-put provision.

The plaintiffs also argued for the first time that the previously agreed-upon programs at iHope and various District 75 schools were no longer available because those schools had changed their educational models. The court rejected reconsideration of that argument because it was new, because the plaintiffs had not addressed the traditional standard for a preliminary injunction that would apply to this type of relief, and because most of the supporting material was new. The court specifically noted an iHope reopening plan, an unauthenticated letter from teachers, and news articles about school changes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court further observed that the plaintiffs’ complaint and motion papers sought immediate funding for tuition and related services, not an order requiring the Department to issue pendency determinations.

Department’s Motion

The Department did not dispute that pendency was appropriate for thirteen students. It argued that the court had overlooked the plaintiffs’ failure to provide documentation about educational costs required under Department policies.

After filing its motion, the Department acknowledged that it had the necessary documentation for eleven of the thirteen students. Following an order modifying the payment deadlines for those eleven students, the parties met and reported that the plaintiffs had provided the required documentation for the remaining two students.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It denied as moot the Department’s motion for reconsideration because the documentation issue had been resolved. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entries 24, 26, and 29.