Khanimova v. Banks, 1:23-cv-04124

Plaintiff Svetlana Khanimova, on behalf of her disabled daughter Y.N., challenged the New York City Department of Education and its Chancellor for denying public funding for one-on-one nursing services and nursing transportation in connection with her unilateral private school placement at iBrain for the 2022-23 school year.
Y.N. has severe disabilities, is non-verbal, non-ambulatory, and requires constant nursing care.
The Committee on Special Education (CSE) deemed Y.N. eligible for special education but recommended a state-approved nonpublic day program, which Khanimova rejected in favor of iBrain.
The Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) held that the district failed to offer Y.N. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), found iBrain was an appropriate placement, and awarded tuition and special transportation, but did not award funding for one-on-one nursing services.
Khanimova appealed the IHO’s denial of nursing funding to the State Review Officer (SRO), but her appeal was dismissed as untimely because it was served three days after the 40-day deadline.
In federal court, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of SRO Appeal	Delayed appeal due to unclear notice by defendants about denial	Appeal undisputedly untimely, no good cause shown	Appeal untimely; no jurisdiction
Notice of IHO’s Ruling	Claimed IHO’s decision was ambiguous and implied nursing was funded	IHO’s decision clearly excluded nursing services	Plaintiff on notice; no ambiguity
SRO’s Dismissal Standard	Dismissal arbitrary/capricious due to de minimis delay	Dismissal proper under regulatory requirements	SRO’s decision not arbitrary
Subject Matter Jurisdiction	Delay excusable due to circumstances	Failure to exhaust bars federal review	Federal court lacks jurisdiction

Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (explaining IDEA’s FAPE requirement applies to states receiving federal funds)
Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (Burlington/Carter test for reimbursement under IDEA)
R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (procedures for developing IEPs under New York law)
M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for judicial review of IDEA administrative proceedings)
D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 2006) (requirements and nature of IEPs)