DOE Did Not Violate Court Order Withholding Tuition During Pendency Appeal, Magistrate Judge Rules

MANHATTAN (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied a motion for civil contempt against the New York City Department of Education on Monday, ruling that the agency’s failure to pay the full balance of a state hearing officer’s pendency order did not violate a federal court directive because the student’s educational placement remained secure.

The dispute centers on a September 2025 order from an Independent Hearing Officer directing the DOE to pay full tuition to the International Institute of the Brain and transportation costs to Sisters Travel and Transportation for the 2025–2026 school year.

Plaintiff Eileen Mendez, acting as parent and natural guardian of student A.C., argued that a September 2025 order by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon, which noted the child’s placement at the institute was “assured,” transformed the state hearing officer’s order into a binding federal court order.

Mendez sought contempt sanctions after the DOE stopped making payments, despite having paid $0.18 million for tuition and $94,829 for transportation in October 2025.

Cave rejected the argument, noting that even if the state order was incorporated into federal proceedings, the student’s placement was not in jeopardy.

“Particularly given Defendants’ counsel’s representations at the Conference that the child’s placement at iBrain remains intact, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s acknowledgment at the March 3, 2026 conference that the child’s ‘placement [is not] in jeopardy,’ Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the child’s placement at iBrain is ‘at risk,’” Cave wrote.

The magistrate judge also pointed to the pendency of the DOE’s appeal before a State Review Officer, which kept the scope of payment obligations under review.

“Where the DOE is challenging the balance due under a pendency order before an SRO, it is inappropriate for this Court to require the DOE ‘to pay the full balance [ ] while those appeals remain pending,’” Cave wrote, citing a March 2026 decision in Nicholls v. Aviles-Ramos.

The DOE had argued that Mendez failed to identify how the child’s placement was jeopardized or how she would suffer irreparable harm.

Defendants’ counsel told the court during an April 22 telephone conference that the agency had not changed and would not change the child’s placement at the institute without consent, even after the institute notified the court in April that it had suspended operations due to staffing limitations.