Advance Decisions Search

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed his request for an order directing respondent (the district) to prevent a particular district employee from serving on the district's Committee on Special Education moving forward.  The appeal must be dismissed.

These proceedings arise under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  With respect to Appeal No. 21-247, petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO I) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for a portion of the 2019-20 school year and for the 2020-21 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from IHO I's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered to provide an appropriate educational program to the student for a portion of the 2019-20 school year.  With respect to Appeal No. 21-248, the parents appeal from the decision of an IHO (IHO II) which dismissed their due process complaint notice relating to the 2021-22 school year.  As Appeal Nos. 21-247 and 21-248 involve the same student and overlapping issues, they will be decided together.  The appeal in 21-247 must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal in 21-247 must be sustained.  The appeal in 21-248 must be sustained in part and remanded to IHO II for further administrative proceedings.

Appeal Withdrawn

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for, or to directly fund, the costs of the student's special education services for the 2020-21 school year and which denied, in part, her request to be reimbursed for, or to directly fund, the costs of the student's special education services for the 2021-22 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to offer the student an appropriate educational program for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years and which awarded funding to the parent for nine hours per week of special education services.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) provided appropriate educational programming to the student and denied the parents' request for compensatory educational services for summer 2019, summer 2020, and the 10-month portion of the 2020-21 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Aaron School for the 2019-20 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining his son's pendency (stay-put) placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her requests for publicly funded independent educational evaluations (IEEs) of her son and for compensatory educational services to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to provide an appropriate program and services to her son for the period following closure of school buildings in March 2020.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from that portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which tolled the statute of limitations with regard to future compensatory services claims to be brought by respondent (the parent) associated with the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years. The appeal must be sustained in part.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining the respondents' (parents') son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from the interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining the student's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The IHO found that the student's individualized education program (IEP), dated March 16, 2020, which was developed by the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) and identified a 12:1+2 special class placement and related services at the Fred S. Keller School (Keller preschool), constituted the student's pendency placement.  Respondents (the parents) cross-appeal the IHO's failure to award compensatory educational services and costs related to transporting the student to the Keller preschool for the 2021-22 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal Withdrawn

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) awarding transportation as part of respondents' (the parents') daughter's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination which denied their request for a 1:1 paraprofessional and music therapy as part of the student's pendency.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered the student appropriate special education programming and denied their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the Imagine Academy for the 2019-20 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from the interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining their son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to reimburse the parent for her son's tuition costs at the Windward School (Windward) for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.  The parent cross-appeals from the IHO's failure to address all of the claims raised in her due process complaint notice.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining the student's pendency (stay put) placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Gillen Brewer School (Gillen Brewer) for the 2020-21 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's failure to find additional reasons as to why the district failed to offer the student an appropriate educational program.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, her requests for relief consisting of a prospective placement and services, a specific assistive technology device, compensatory educational services, and specific hourly rates for the compensatory educational services.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's order directing the district to fund a music therapy evaluation as an independent educational evaluation (IEE).  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal Withdrawn