A recent lawsuit claims that a local educational agency failed to pay attorney fees owed after an administrative ruling determined it had not provided adequate educational services to a student with a disability. The complaint was filed by L.B.-P. and A.C., individually and on behalf of their child J.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 10, 2026, naming the New York City Department of Education as defendant.
According to the complaint, L.B.-P. and A.C. are parents of J.L.C., described as a child with a disability under federal law. The filing states that both parents and their child reside within the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Education, which is identified as a local educational agency subject to federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA).
The dispute began when, by letter dated December 17, 2024, the plaintiffs requested a due process hearing under IDEA provisions on behalf of J.L.C. They sought “a determination that the Department had denied their child a free appropriate public education,” as well as reimbursement or direct funding for tuition and other relief deemed fair by an impartial hearing officer.
Impartial Hearing Officer Mohammad Ezzati presided over the case (Case No. 289670), conducting a hearing on March 6, 2025. Following this proceeding, Officer Ezzati issued a decision on March 11, 2025, finding that “the Department had denied the student a free appropriate public education for the 2024-2025 school year.” The order required the department to reimburse $3,600 to the parent for tuition costs at Private School during that academic year and to pay $138,360 directly to Private School for remaining tuition funds. Additionally, it mandated door-to-door special transportation services and affirmed J.L.C.’s entitlement to a twelve-month program or service.
The document reports that neither party appealed this decision, making it final. As stated in the complaint: “Plaintiffs are a prevailing party by virtue of the IHO’s decision.” Subsequently, L.B.-P. and A.C., through their attorney Adam Dayan, submitted an attorney fee claim to the department for legal services rendered during these administrative proceedings.
The plaintiffs allege they have “attempted, without success, to resolve the attorney fee claim” and note that “settlement negotiations have not occurred because Respondent has been unresponsive to attempts to initiate settlement discussions.” They assert that despite being obligated under IDEA’s fee-shifting provisions (20 U.S.C. §1415(4)(3)), “Defendant has not satisfied its obligation to pay attorney fees in a timely fashion.” As relief in court, they demand reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred during both administrative proceedings and this civil action itself.
In addition to legal costs related directly to representation before Officer Ezzati, L.B.-P. and A.C. seek prejudgment interest on unpaid amounts and request any further relief deemed just by the court. Their filing asks that “this Court: (1) Assume jurisdiction over this action; (2) Award…costs, expenses, and attorney fees together with prejudgment interest for the administrative proceedings…; (3) Award…the costs, expenses, and attorney fees of this action…; and (4) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Dayan of Law Offices of Adam Dayan PLLC in New York City. The case is identified as Case No. 26-cv-1940.
Source: 126cv01940_Lb_v_New_York_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
