A family is asking a federal court to order New York City Public Schools to pay attorneys’ fees after an impartial hearing found the district failed to provide required educational services for their child with a disability. The complaint was filed by D.W. and A.W., individually and on behalf of their child S.W., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 11, 2026, naming New York City Public Schools as the defendant.
According to the complaint, D.W. and A.W. initiated an impartial due process hearing on January 7, 2021, alleging that their child S.W., who has been classified as a student with an intellectual disability by the district, was denied a free appropriate public education during the 2019-2020 school year. The parents claimed violations under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The filing outlines that S.W. presents with anxiety and global delays in reading, mathematics, spelling, writing, fine motor skills, visual perceptual skills, syntax, auditory memory, auditory processing, and focus and attention. The plaintiffs state that these challenges require specific educational supports which they allege were not provided by New York City Public Schools as mandated by federal law.
The impartial due process hearing took place over ten days between December 2021 and January 2023 before Impartial Hearing Officer Rodney Austin. On March 17, 2023, following review of evidence presented by both parties, Officer Austin issued findings in favor of D.W. and A.W., determining that S.W. had been denied a free appropriate public education for the relevant school year.
The decision ordered several forms of relief: reimbursement to [Private School] for tuition paid for S.W.’s attendance during the 2019-2020 school year; reimbursement to D.W. and A.W. for any out-of-pocket transportation costs related to S.W.’s schooling; and reimbursement for any tuition payments made directly by the parents themselves.
Citing these outcomes, D.W. and A.W. assert in their lawsuit that they are now “the ‘prevailing party’ entitled to payment of their reasonable legal fees and costs pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3).” They further argue that Section 504’s fee-shifting provisions also entitle them to recover such expenses because they succeeded in enforcing rights guaranteed under federal anti-discrimination laws.
The complaint references statutory requirements obligating local educational agencies like New York City Public Schools—identified as a recipient of federal assistance—to develop individualized education programs tailored to each student’s unique needs as defined under IDEA regulations.
As part of their requested relief from the court, D.W. and A.W. ask that jurisdiction be assumed over this action; that administrative records be reviewed; that additional evidence be considered if necessary; and most centrally—that they be awarded all costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees associated both with prosecuting their original administrative claim (Impartial Hearing #205683) and with bringing this current federal action.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michele Kule-Korgood of Kule-Korgood & Associates P.C., based in Forest Hills, New York. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02013.
Source: 126cv2013_Dw_and_Aw_v_New_York_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
