Private NYC special ed school owes $800K in legal fees over sex harass, health violations: suit

New York Post - May 9th, 2025

The International Institute for the Brain (iBRAIN), a private special education school on the Upper East Side, is embroiled in a lawsuit over unpaid legal fees amounting to $815,000. The elite law firm Pryor Cashman claims that iBRAIN has not fulfilled its payment obligations for services rendered in legal disputes concerning sexual harassment claims and health violations. The school, which specializes in educating children with brain injuries and disorders, had hired the firm to handle various legal issues throughout 2023. While iBRAIN has made partial payments totaling $81,000, a significant balance remains, prompting the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court.

School founder Patrick Donohue attributes the financial shortfall to the New York City Department of Education, which he claims owes the school $6 million in tuition and related service funds. Donohue, whose school supports non-verbal and wheelchair-dependent students, argues that the DOE's delays are part of a broader pattern of withholding funds for special education. This situation highlights ongoing challenges in funding special education and the financial pressures faced by institutions like iBRAIN. As the dispute unfolds, it underscores the complex relationship between private special education providers and public funding mechanisms, raising broader questions about accountability and support for vulnerable student populations.

Funding Lawsuit Sexual Harassment I Brain Pryor Cashman Patrick Donohue Nyc Department Of Education Special Education Legal Fees Health Violations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed account of a legal dispute involving iBrain and highlights significant issues related to special education funding and management. It is timely and relevant, engaging readers with its focus on financial and operational challenges faced by a private special education school. The story effectively uses clear language and structure to communicate its points, making it accessible to a broad audience.

However, the article's reliance on a limited range of sources, primarily from iBrain's perspective, affects its balance and source quality. The lack of input from other key stakeholders, such as the NYC DOE and Pryor Cashman, limits the story's comprehensiveness and potential impact on public discourse. Greater transparency about the efforts to obtain comments from all parties and the limitations of the current information would enhance the article's transparency.

Overall, while the article successfully raises awareness of important issues, it would benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives and additional verification of certain claims to strengthen its accuracy and impact.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of a legal dispute involving iBrain and the law firm Pryor Cashman. It accurately reports the claim that iBrain owes $815,000 in legal fees, having paid only $81,000, as stated in the lawsuit. The article mentions specific legal issues such as sexual harassment claims, health violations, and libel suits, which align with the lawsuit's claims.

However, the accuracy of the story hinges on verifying several claims, such as the exact nature of the health code violations and the specific details of the lawsuits. The article reports that the NYC Department of Education owes iBrain $6 million, a claim made by the school's founder, Patrick Donohue, which requires further verification from DOE records or statements.

Overall, the story is well-documented in terms of the lawsuit's specifics, but it relies heavily on claims from involved parties without independent verification. This affects its precision and truthfulness, necessitating further corroboration of certain points, particularly those involving financial transactions and legal settlements.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of iBrain and its founder, Patrick Donohue, who blames the NYC DOE for the unpaid legal fees. While it includes quotes from Donohue explaining the school's financial situation, it lacks input from other key stakeholders, such as the NYC DOE or Pryor Cashman, which would provide a more balanced view.

The story includes allegations made by a former employee about the school's unsanitary conditions, offering a critical perspective. However, it does not explore the former employee's viewpoint beyond the lawsuit, nor does it provide comments from the NYC DOE despite acknowledging that they did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Overall, the article presents a somewhat one-sided narrative, focusing on iBrain's defense without equally weighing the other parties' perspectives. Including responses or comments from the DOE or Pryor Cashman would enhance balance and provide a fuller picture of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative of the legal and financial issues facing iBrain. It effectively outlines the sequence of events, from the hiring of Pryor Cashman to the current lawsuit, making it easy for readers to follow the story.

The language used is straightforward and avoids technical jargon, which aids in comprehension. The article also clearly distinguishes between reported facts and the claims made by involved parties, helping readers differentiate between verified information and allegations.

Overall, the article maintains a neutral tone and presents information logically, contributing to its clarity and readability.

Source quality

The primary sources for the article are the lawsuit filed by Pryor Cashman and statements from iBrain's founder, Patrick Donohue. While these sources are directly involved in the dispute and provide firsthand information, their perspectives are inherently biased.

The absence of comments from Pryor Cashman or the NYC DOE weakens the source quality, as the article relies heavily on one side of the story. The inclusion of legal documents or statements from the law firm and the DOE would improve the reliability and credibility of the reporting.

The story does cite the lawsuit itself, which is a credible document, but without corroboration from independent or third-party sources, the overall source quality remains moderate.

Transparency

The article is transparent in disclosing its reliance on the lawsuit and statements from Patrick Donohue. It clearly attributes these sources and provides context for the claims made, such as the financial issues between iBrain and the NYC DOE.

However, the article lacks transparency regarding the absence of input from other parties involved, such as the NYC DOE and Pryor Cashman. It acknowledges that the DOE did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but does not indicate whether further attempts were made to reach them.

Greater transparency about the efforts to obtain comments from all parties and the limitations of the current information would enhance the article's transparency, helping readers understand the basis for the claims and any potential biases.