Crosley v. Banks
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-07101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crosley v. Banks, Judge Vyskocil denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring immediate payment for students’ services.
The parents and their three minor children seeking payment, and the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks in his official capacity as Chancellor.
What happened
Crosley v. Banks involved parents seeking payment from the New York City Department of Education for private-school tuition, nursing, related, and transportation services provided to their three children, who were classified as students with disabilities under federal law. The parents requested immediate payment while the case was pending.
The Department paid the requested amounts except for nursing services for one student. The parents then submitted briefing about that remaining issue, but the court said the briefing did not address whether they would suffer harm that could not later be repaired or whether an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also said the parents’ earlier request was outdated because it was filed before the other payments were made.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court also said the Department’s request for attendance records was premature because the Department had not answered the complaint or filed its own motion.
The detailed version
- Crosley v. Banks · No. 1:22-cv-07101
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
Two sets of parents brought the action for themselves and as parents and natural guardians of three minor children. The opinion states that each child had been classified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The parents sought payment from David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education, for private-school tuition and related and transportation services provided during the 2021–2022 school year.
In August 2022, the parents moved for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a court order requiring action before the case is finally decided. They asked the court to direct the Department to pay for the services immediately.
Proceedings and arguments
After a status conference, the Department represented that it had processed certain payments and expected the parents to receive the funds within 10 business days. The parties later reported that all relevant payments had been made except payment for nursing services for one student. The court allowed additional briefing on that remaining issue.
The court found that the parents’ briefing was deficient. It did not address whether they would suffer irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later—or whether the public interest favored an injunction. The court also noted that the parents’ initial motion was stale because it did not mention nursing services and was filed before the Department made the other relevant payments. The court stated that the initial motion therefore could not support a preliminary injunction.
The Department asked the court to require the parents to provide attendance records showing the actual dates of attendance so that any possible transportation overpayment could be determined. The court called that request premature because the Department had not responded to the complaint and had not sought relief through a separate motion.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state that the court reached a final decision on the underlying payment dispute. The court’s order addressed only whether immediate preliminary relief should be granted based on the materials submitted at that stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.