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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which did not address the appropriateness of the educational program recommended by the respondent (the district) for the student for the 2017-18 school year and which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Summit School (Summit) for the 2018-19 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO), which dismissed the relief sought in the parent's due process complaint notice as moot.  Respondent (the district) also cross-appeals from the determination that the matter was moot.  The appeal and the cross-appeal must be sustained in part and the matter is remanded back to an IHO for a determination on the merits.

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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to have respondent (the district) fund home-based special education services to their son for the 2019-20 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 parent) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from that portion of the interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining the student's pendency placement that limited the rate to be paid for the special education itinerant (SEIT) services ordered as part of the pendency placement.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn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) determining respondents' (the parents') son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of petitioner's recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The IHO found that the student's pendency placement was at the Brookville Center for Children Services (Brookville).  The appeal must be sustained.

Appeal Withdrawn

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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the due process complaint notice and denied the parent's requested relief concerning the educational placements, programs, and related services recommended by the Committee on Special Education (CSE) for his son for the 2019-20 school year. The appeal must be sustained in part and the matter must be remanded to the IHO for further administrative proceedings.

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, in part, the parent's request for compensatory education services to remedy the respondent's (the district's) failure to provide the student with an appropriate educational program for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.  The appeal must be sustained.

This proceeding arises under Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from that portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for an order directing respondent (the district) to modify its individualized education services program to continue providing special education services consistent with a prior individualized education program.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2018-19 school year.  Respondents (the parents) cross-appeal from the portion of the IHO's decision that found that the student's unilateral placement at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) was not appropriate and that equities did not favor the parents.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for the costs of their son's privately obtained related services for the 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student for those years.  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.  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 a portion of her son's tuition costs at the New Beginnings School (New Beginnings) for the 2018-19 school year.  The parent cross-appeals from the IHO's determination which denied her request for either full reimbursement of tuition or full direct payment for tuition at New Beginnings for the 2018-19 school year.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for the costs of the student's tuition at the Mandala School (Mandala) for the 2017-18 school year and which denied their request for compensatory educational services for the 2016-17 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it offered an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2017-18 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the IVDU Marilyn David Upper School (IVDU) for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.  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, 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 her son's pendency (stay put) placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.