Payment disputes under the maintenance of placement provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) continue to generate federal litigation in New York. In Chaperon v. Banks, No. 24-CV-05135 (JAV), 2025 WL 2207908, 125 LRP 22657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025), four sets of parents whose children attended the iBrain private school sought immediate funding for tuition and related services during pendency. The New York City Department of Education did not dispute that iBrain was the students’ appropriate placement. By the time the case progressed, however, the 2024–25 extended school year had ended and the Department had paid the remaining tuition owed for that year. That development framed the court’s analysis.
The parents filed suit on July 7, 2024, and litigation over emergency relief for pendency costs extended into the following year. They moved for summary judgment and later renewed their request for emergency relief on May 23, 2025. The requested relief was broad: a declaration that iBrain constituted each student’s pendency placement during proceedings concerning the 2024–25 extended school year; an order requiring funding of tuition, transportation, and, where applicable, nursing services throughout the administrative and judicial proceedings; and an order directing that payments be made directly to iBrain and other providers.
The four students’ procedural histories varied. In one matter, the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) ordered partial transportation funding, and the State Review Officer (SRO) later ordered full funding; neither party appealed. In another, a pendency order required private transportation funding, and an SRO decision had issued, though the appeal period had not expired. In a third, the pendency order addressed transportation and related services, and an SRO decision had issued, but the record before the court did not include information about it. In the fourth, the pendency order included supplemental related services, nursing, and transportation, and the IHO decision was on appeal to the SRO.
The court began by addressing mootness. After criticizing aspects of the parents’ evidentiary submissions, it concluded that the claims regarding educational placement and tuition for the 2024–25 school year were moot. The undisputed record established that all pendency tuition payments for that year had been made. The voluntary cessation exception did not apply because the tuition dispute for that school year could not recur, and in some matters the pendency period itself had ended. A claim for late fees was deemed waived, both because it had not been properly raised and because the pendency orders did not include late fees, the iBrain contract did not treat late fees as tuition, and pendency tuition is paid retrospectively.
The analysis did not end there. With respect to transportation and nursing services for three students, the court determined that although some payments had been made, the plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory relief and to an order requiring payment of outstanding balances in the ordinary course of business. For one student, however, the IHO had denied inclusion of nursing services in the pendency order, and summary judgment was denied as to that claim. The court also emphasized that the ultimate merits determination regarding entitlement to transportation did not govern a claim seeking payment during pendency.
In addressing the mechanics of payment, the court acknowledged that IDEA does not require circumvention of ordinary payment procedures and that 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) operates as an automatic injunction with respect to educational placement, not payments. Still, it found that the specific circumstances mattered. Where the school year had concluded, all contractual services had been delivered, and reimbursement had been delayed for months, directing payment in the “ordinary course” made little sense. The court concluded that the full cost of the student’s transportation services for the academic year was long past due and must be reimbursed in full, and it entered orders addressing each student’s claims for related service payments.
The decision draws a clear line between moot tuition claims once fully paid and outstanding related service balances that remain unpaid after services are rendered. Within the confines of the pendency framework, the court treated completed services and prolonged delay as determinative under the facts presented.