Crosley v. Banks
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-07101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Crosley v. Banks, Judge Vyskocil denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion over IDEA payments.
The ruling directly affected the parents and three minor children seeking payment under the IDEA orders, as well as the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks in his official capacity. It also criticized the defendants’ disclosure of personal information about Patrick Donohue and his family.
What happened
In Crosley v. Banks, two sets of parents sued the New York City Department of Education and Chancellor David C. Banks to enforce orders requiring payment for their children’s private-school tuition, related services, and transportation. The children had been classified as students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The court ruled that the Department had paid the specific amount ordered for Y.N.’s related services and did not have to make a separate payment for nursing services. The court denied the parents’ motion on that issue and granted the defendants’ motion. For Z.C.’s transportation, the court denied the parents’ motion as moot because the Department had paid the requested amount, denied the Department’s motion, and allowed the parents to file a new pleading if the Department later tried to recover the money.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also criticized the defendants for publishing personal information about a school founder and warned that similar conduct could be sanctionable. Overall, the parents’ motion was denied, while the defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Crosley v. Banks · No. 1:22-cv-07101
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
Two sets of parents brought the case for three minor children who had been classified as students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents had previously obtained orders from an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) requiring the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to fund private-school tuition, related services, and transportation. No party appealed those orders, so they became final and binding.
The parents claimed that the DOE had not fully complied with the IHO orders. The parties later filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and one side is entitled to judgment under the law. The court noted that resolving the motions appeared likely to resolve the remaining issues.
Y.N.’s Nursing Services
The IHO ordered the DOE to pay Y.N.’s tuition of $67,000, $50,128 for related services, and special transportation costs under the specified transportation agreement. The parents argued that at-school nursing services were included within “related services” and that the DOE therefore had to pay the full nursing costs separately.
The court rejected that argument. It held that the IHO had ordered a specific and definite amount of $50,128 for related services, and that the DOE had paid that amount. The court said it did not matter whether nursing services could generally qualify as related services because the IHO’s order did not separately require payment for them.
The parents also argued that the IHO had made a mistake and that the court should order payment using its equitable authority or send the issue back to the IHO for clarification. The court declined both requests. It held that the parents could have appealed any error in the IHO’s order, but did not do so, and that the order was clear and required no clarification.
The parents’ motion for summary judgment on the nursing-services issue was denied, and the defendants’ cross-motion was granted.
Z.C.’s Transportation Costs
The DOE had initially not paid Z.C.’s transportation costs, but later paid the full $163,500 claimed for the 2021–2022 school year. The DOE argued that it might have overpaid because the IHO order required payment only for the days Z.C. actually used transportation. It asked the court to require the parents to provide attendance records so the DOE could decide whether to seek repayment.
The court declined to issue that order. Because the parents had sought payment and received it, the court held that their transportation claim was moot. The parents’ motion on this issue was denied as moot, and the DOE’s motion for summary judgment was also denied. The parents were granted leave to replead if the DOE later attempted to recover the funds already paid.
Publication of Personal Information
The defendants’ opposition brief included a footnote containing personal information about Patrick Donohue, the founder of the school attended by the children, and his family. The parents asked the court to strike or seal the relevant filings or require the defendants to refile the brief without the hyperlinks.
The court found the footnote concerning and said that, based on the defendants’ own description of the case, information about the transportation contract’s enforceability had no bearing on the dispute. The court characterized the disclosure as “superfluous at best, and menacing at worst,” noted that sealing would provide little benefit because the conduct had occurred in other cases, and warned the defendants and their counsel that similar conduct was unacceptable and borderline sanctionable. The opinion did not state that the court granted the requested sealing or striking relief.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The parties were ordered to advise the court within one week whether any issues remained or whether the case could be closed.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.