T. A. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

T.A., individually and on behalf of M.H., a child with a disability, filed an administrative due-process complaint alleging that the New York City Department of Education failed to provide M.H. with a free appropriate public education during the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After two pre-hearing conferences and one 32-minute hearing, the impartial hearing officer found that the Department had denied M.H. a free appropriate public education. The officer ordered the Department to fund 25 hours of speech and language therapy and 800 hours of after-school individual multisensory academic-remediation services.

T.A. was the prevailing party in that administrative proceeding and therefore sought attorney’s fees under the IDEA’s fee-shifting provision. T.A. requested $30,038.75 for the administrative proceeding and $18,199.50 for the federal action, totaling $48,158.25. The Department did not dispute T.A.’s entitlement to recover fees, but the parties disagreed about the reasonable amount.

Fee Analysis

The court evaluated the requested hourly rates and hours under the IDEA and the factors used to determine a reasonable fee, including the time and labor required, the complexity of the issues, the attorneys’ experience, awards in similar cases, and the amount a reasonable paying client would be willing to pay.

The court found that the requested attorney rates were excessive for this straightforward and largely uncontested matter. It set the rates at $375 per hour for Andrew Cuddy, $275 per hour for Justin Coretti, and $150 per hour for Raul Velez. Because T.A. provided no information about Britton Bouchard’s education or experience, the court awarded no fees for Bouchard’s billed time. The court set the rate for all paralegal work at $100 per hour because T.A. had not provided enough information to justify a higher rate.

The court declined to reduce the number of hours billed. After reviewing the billing entries, it found no excessive or duplicative time. The court accepted that preparing for the administrative hearing required review of school records and expert assessments and preparation of affidavits and exhibits, even though the hearing was ultimately uncontested.

Settlement Offer and Calculation

The Department made a written settlement offer on February 8, 2022. The court calculated that the fees and expenses incurred through that date totaled $19,079.50, which was less than the settlement offer. The court therefore concluded that the IDEA barred recovery for work performed after the offer date. It also found that T.A. was not substantially justified in rejecting the offer because the requested rates exceeded prevailing rates and the arguments concerning interest did not justify rejecting the offer.

The final award consisted of $16,555.00 for attorney and paralegal work in the administrative proceeding, $342.50 in administrative-proceeding expenses, and $2,184.50 for the federal action, including the filing fee. The total was $19,079.50.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted in part and denied in part T.A.’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses. The court awarded T.A.’s counsel $19,079.50 in fees and expenses, terminated the motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.