A federal lawsuit claims that a local education agency failed to provide a legally mandated free appropriate public education to a student with disabilities, raising questions about the rights of children requiring special education services and the obligations of public school authorities. The complaint was filed by Mariel Diaz Baez, as parent and natural guardian of L.G., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 20, 2026. The defendants named are Kamar H. Samuels in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Department of Education (DOE), the New York State Education Department (NYSED), and the Office of State Review (OSR).
According to the filing, Diaz Baez alleges that DOE did not offer her child L.G., who has multiple disabilities including traumatic brain injury and requires intensive support services, a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2024-2025 extended school year as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The complaint outlines extensive medical needs for L.G., such as non-verbal status, use of an adaptive wheelchair, need for a full-time nurse and paraprofessional support, specialized transportation accommodations, and highly individualized instruction.
The dispute traces back to July 2, 2024 when Diaz Baez filed a Due Process Complaint against DOE alleging failure to provide FAPE for L.G. during the upcoming school year. She requested an order requiring DOE to fund her child’s educational program at International Academy of the Brain (iBRAIN) during ongoing proceedings. On October 8, 2024 Impartial Hearing Officer Philip P. Sturges issued a Pendency Order finding that L.G.’s pendency placement was governed by a March 31, 2022 Individualized Education Program (IEP). However, Diaz Baez contends this was erroneous because subsequent unappealed administrative decisions had established iBRAIN as L.G.’s current placement.
Further hearings led to additional rulings: on January 14, 2025 IHO Sturges issued findings upholding DOE’s position that it had offered FAPE through its proposed program—a decision later affirmed by State Review Officer Justyn P. Bates on November 20, 2025 in SRO Decision No. 25-124. According to plaintiff’s filing, these decisions did not address whether iBRAIN was an appropriate placement or if there were equitable grounds justifying reductions in funding.
The complaint details procedural violations allegedly committed by DOE including delays in convening meetings required under IDEA timelines—such as failing to hold timely Committee on Special Education meetings or provide mandated notices—and substantive violations like failing to recommend necessary services or appropriate class sizes tailored to L.G.’s needs. Plaintiff argues that these failures have increased her financial risk due to contractual obligations with service providers for tuition, nursing care, and transportation tied directly to legal remedies.
Diaz Baez also highlights broader systemic issues within DOE’s administration of special education programs: “DOE engages in spurious and dilatory tactics when it comes to its obligation to fund pendency programs and placements,” she asserts in the filing. Public testimony from DOE General Counsel Liz Vladeck is cited regarding payment processes following impartial hearing orders.
The relief sought includes court orders declaring iBRAIN—with associated nursing and transportation services—as L.G.’s pendency placement during all administrative and judicial proceedings; reversal or modification of adverse administrative decisions; full funding for tuition and related services; injunctive relief compelling compliance with statutory deadlines; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any accrued late fees under provider contracts.
The complaint references several legal authorities including IDEA provisions at Title 20 U.S.C., relevant state laws and regulations governing special education rights in New York State, procedural safeguards set forth at both federal and state levels—including requirements that due process hearings be completed within specific timeframes—and prior settlement agreements intended to ensure timely implementation of hearing officer orders.
No attorney names are explicitly provided within this portion of the document reviewed. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02321.
Source: 126cv02321_Mariel_Diaz_v_Kamar_Samuels_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
