Ambrister v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

• Docket Number: 22-CV-5516 (JGLC)
• Decision Date: 20 August 2024
• Citation: Ambrister v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 22-CV-5516 (JGLC) (S.D. N.Y. Aug 20, 2024)
• Parties: RHONDA AMBRISTER, individually and as Legal Guardian of R.D., a minor, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1

RHONDA AMBRISTER, individually and as Legal Guardian of R.D., a minor, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

No. 22-CV-5516 (JGLC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 20, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge

Plaintiff the legal guardian of a student with a disability, brings this case seeking tuition reimbursement for her unilateral placement of the student in a private school for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school years, after Plaintiff rejected Defendant's proposed special education plan as inadequate to meet the student's needs.Plaintiff seeks reversal of an adverse decision by a State Review Officer(“SRO”) in the administrative proceedings below.Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because the student was not a resident of the school district.The Court finds that the SRO did not err in giving binding effect to a prior administrative determination that the student was not a resident of the district, which limits the time period the Court considers to the period from February 25, 2020 to March 25, 2020.With respect to that time period, the Court finds that the school district's proposed special education placement was not appropriate to meet the student's needs and that Plaintiff is entitled to retroactive tuition reimbursement.For the other time periods in question, Plaintiff's repeated procedural missteps leave the Court unable to fashion the relief she seeks.For the reasons stated herein, the parties' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

I.IDEA Statutory Framework

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), states receiving federal special education funding are required to provide free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to children with disabilities.20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A);see alsoT.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151(2d Cir.2014).To provide a FAPE to each student with a disability, a school district must develop an individualized education program (“IEP”) that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.”Ventura de Paulino v. N.Y.C Dep t of Educ., 959 F.3d 519, 525(2d Cir.2020)(quotingT.M. ex rel. A.M., 752 F.3d at 151).

“The IDEA also requires states to provide an administrative procedure for parents to challenge the adequacy of their children's IEPs.”Mendez v. Banks, 65 F.4th 56, 59(2d Cir.2023)(citing20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)).New York has implemented a two-tier system of administrative review.N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404;see alsoVentura de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 526.In the first tier, a parent can file an administrative due process complaint (“DPC”) challenging the IEP and requesting a hearing before an impartial hearing officer (“IHO”).Ventura de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 526.In the second tier, parties aggrieved by the IHOs can appeal their decision to an SRO.Id.;see alsoR.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 175(2d Cir.2012).“Once the state review officer makes a final decision, the aggrieved party may seek judicial review of that decision in a state or federal trial court.”Ventura de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 526;see20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

Section 1415(j) of the IDEA, also known as the “stay-put” or “pendency” provision, provides that “while the administrative and judicial proceedings are pending and unless the school district and the parents agree otherwise, a child must remain, at public expense, in his or her then-current educational placement.”Id.“The purpose of this provision is ‘to maintain the [child's] educational status quo while the parties' dispute is being resolved.'”Abrams v. Porter, No. 20-3899-CV, 2021 WL 5829762, at *1(2d Cir.Dec. 9, 2021)(quotingT.M. ex rel. A.M., 752 F.3d at 152).“[A] school district is required to continue funding whatever educational placement was last agreed upon for the child until the relevant administrative and judicial proceedings are complete.”Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 962 F.3d 649, 659(2d Cir.2020)(internal quotation marks omitted).

Although the stay-put provision entitles a student to remain at their current educational placement, the New York City Department of Education(“DOE” or the “District”) may dispute what constitutes the last agreed upon placement.See, e.g., Ventura de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 533(finding that DOE was not obligated to fund students' placements where parents unilaterally enrolled students in new school that DOE did not approve);Zvi D. v. Ambach,694 F.2d 904, 908(2d Cir.1982)(holding that plaintiff-parent was not entitled to reimbursement from DOE where DOE explicitly limited student's “current educational placement” to a specific school year).Thus, until a pendency determination confirming a student's placement is issued, DOE is not obligated to fund that student's tuition or related services.SeeMendez, 65 F.4th at 60;Ventura de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 532.

II.Factual Background

PlaintiffRhonda Ambrister is the legal guardian of R.D. (the “Student”).^[1]ECF No. 79 ¶ 1.DOE is the local educational agency in the City of New York and is responsible for making FAPE available to children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 who reside in the City.Id.¶ 3.

During the 2019-2020 school year, R.D. was thirteen years old.ECF No. 77 ¶ 1. R.D. suffers from a brain injury (that has resulted in global impairments and delays) and has been medically diagnosed with cerebral palsy and a severe seizure disorder.Id.¶¶ 2-3.R.D. is nonverbal, partially ambulatory, and often uses a wheelchair because of her frequent seizures.Id.¶ 4.

R.D. attended Every Child Counts School in the Bahamas until September 2019 when the school closed due to a hurricane.Id.¶ 7;ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 5-6.R.D. and her guardians relocated to New York City in December 2019.ECF No. 79 ¶ 6.Plaintiff enrolled R.D. in the DOE schools.ECF No. 77 ¶ 8.

In January 2020 the Committee on Special Education(“CSE”) drafted a Comparable Service Plan (“CSP”) for the Student and implementation was offered at DOE's American Sign Language and English Secondary School.Id.;ECF No. 79 ¶ 9.The CSE recommended placement in a special education class with a 12:1+(3:1) ratio in a District 75 program.ECF No. 79 ¶ 11.A 12:1+(3:1) ratio refers to having 12 children in the class with one teacher and up to four classroom paraprofessionals or assistant teachers in the classroom.Id.¶ 12.Plaintiff rejected DOE'sCSP. ECF No. 77 ¶ 9;ECF No. 79 ¶ 18.In February 2020, Plaintiff sent a Ten-Day Notice to DOE and unilaterally enrolled R.D. at the International Institute for the Brain (“iBRAIN”) for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year.ECF No. 77 ¶ 10-11.

In March 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic caused the closure of schools in New York City, Plaintiff and R.D. returned to the Bahamas.Id.¶ 12.

The Student and her family returned to the Bahamas in March 2020.ECF No. 79 ¶ 21.On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed an administrative DPC, assigned IHOCase No. 193417, alleging that DOE failed to offer R.D. a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year and that iBRAIN was an appropriate unilateral placement for R.D., and requesting an Order requiring DOE to fund R.D.'s program at iBRAIN for the 2019-2020 school year.ECF No. 77 ¶ 13.On June 9, 2020, DOE's CSE met to develop an IEP for R.D. for the 2020-2021 school year.Id.¶ 14;ECF No. 79 ¶ 22.Plaintiff rejected the DOE's proposed IEP for the 2020-2021 school year.ECF No. 77 ¶ 15.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a DPC (IHOCase No. 196227) for the 2020-2021 school year.Id.¶ 16.The two DPCs were consolidated.Id.¶ 17.

Plaintiff joined a suit in the Southern District of New York requesting a pendency order for R.D.'s 2020-2021 school year.Id.¶ 18.In that case, Judge Schofield denied the motion for an interim pendency order with respect to R.D. Araujo v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 20-CV-7032 (LGS), 2020 WL 5701828, at *3-4(S.D.N.Y.Sept. 24, 2020).

On November 9, 2020, IHO Brown denied Plaintiff's request for a pendency order.ECF No. 77 ¶ 20.On February 10, 2021, IHO Brown's pendency determination was affirmed on appeal in SRO DecisionNo. 20-199. Id.¶ 21;ECF Nos. 35-1-10(“Certified Administrative Record” or “R”) 17 n.16.

On January 4, 2021, DOE emailed Plaintiff a Prior Written Notice stating that the DOE determined that R.D. was not eligible or entitled to attend DOE schools because she was not a resident of New York City as of March 26, 2020.ECF No. 77 ¶ 23;ECF No. 79 ¶ 36.The DOE's residency determination included notice that it could be appealed to the New York State Commissioner of Education(the “Commissioner”) in accordance with New York State Education Law 310 within 30 days of the date of the determination.ECF No. 79 ¶ 37.Plaintiff appealed the DOE's residency determination to the Commissioner, who issued a stay order on May 10, 2021, directing DOE to treat R.D. as a resident until the appeal of the residency determination was decided.ECF No. 77 ¶ 29-30; R 1481.On September 13, 2021, the Commissioner dismissed Plaintiff's appeal as untimely.ECF No. 77 ¶ 31.On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff initiated an Article 78 Special Proceeding in New York State Supreme Court, Albany County, against the Commissioner and DOE challenging the Commissioner's decision, which the court dismissed, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants due to improper service.Id.¶¶ 32, 35.The court denied Plaintiff's motion to reargue.ECF No. 79 ¶ 47.On January 4, 2024, the Third Department affirmed the dismissal, finding that plaintiff failed to...