A recent federal lawsuit claims that a local educational agency failed to pay attorney fees owed after an administrative decision found it had not provided required educational services to a student with a disability. The complaint was filed by C.C. and S.C., individually and on behalf of their child, against the New York City Department of Education in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 16, 2026.
According to court documents, C.C. and S.C. are parents of a child classified as having a disability under federal law. They allege that they reside within the jurisdiction served by the New York City Department of Education, which is obligated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) to provide appropriate educational programs and related services.
The plaintiffs state that on October 15, 2024, they requested a due process hearing pursuant to IDEA provisions. Their request sought a determination that their child had been denied a free appropriate public education for the 2024-2025 school year. They also asked for reimbursement or direct funding for tuition at a private school, as well as compensatory Speech Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy services.
Impartial Hearing Officer Jennifer Ritter was assigned to oversee the case (IHO Case No. 286996). Hearings were held on January 21, March 17, and April 15 of 2025. After reviewing evidence and arguments from both sides, IHO Ritter issued her decision on May 20, 2025.
The impartial hearing officer concluded that “the Department had denied the student a free appropriate public education for the 2024-2025 school year.” As part of her order, she directed that “the Department shall reimburse Parent in the amount of $5,000.00 dollars for the cost of Student’s tuition at Private School during the 2024-2025 school year; the Department shall directly fund the balance of Student’s tuition at the Private School in an amount not to exceed $81,530.00; … [and] fund, as compensatory relief, Speech Language Therapy for 12 weeks.” The therapy was ordered three times per week for thirty minutes per session with flexible scheduling at parental discretion.
Neither party appealed this decision, making it final according to court filings. The plaintiffs assert that this outcome establishes them as prevailing parties under IDEA regulations.
Following this result, C.C. and S.C., through their attorney Adam Dayan, submitted an attorney fee claim to the department seeking payment for legal services rendered during administrative proceedings related to their child’s education plan. According to their complaint, attempts to resolve this claim have been unsuccessful: “Settlement negotiations have not occurred because Respondent has been unresponsive to attempts to initiate settlement discussions.” The plaintiffs argue that “Defendant has not satisfied its obligation to pay attorney fees in a timely fashion” and are therefore demanding prejudgment interest in addition to reasonable fees and expenses.
The lawsuit sets forth two causes of action: one seeking attorney fees and expenses incurred during administrative proceedings under IDEA’s fee-shifting provision (20 U.S.C. §1415), and another seeking similar compensation for bringing this current action before federal court.
In their prayer for relief, C.C. and S.C. ask that the court assume jurisdiction over their case; award all costs, expenses, and attorney fees together with prejudgment interest relating both to prior administrative proceedings and this new action; and grant any further relief deemed just by the court.
The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Dayan of Law Offices of Adam Dayan PLLC in New York City. The case is identified as Court File No. 26-cv-2118.
Source: 126cv02118_CC_and_SC_v_New_York_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
