Advance Decisions Search

Appeal Withdrawn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 determined that the educational program recommended by respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) for her son for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years was appropriate and that the district had appropriately addressed any bullying issues affecting the student during the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which awarded the student prospective placement at an unapproved non-public school for the remainder of the 2019-20 school year.  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 denied their request for specific home-based prospective and compensatory services.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondent's (the parent's) daughter for the 2018-2019 and 2019-20 school years was not appropriate.  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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Churchill School (Churchill) for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to proceed to make findings regarding the appropriateness of Churchill and from relief ordered by the IHO.  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 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 partially reimburse the parents for the costs of the student's tuition at the Gersh Academy (Gersh) for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination which denied their request to be fully reimbursed for the costs of the student's tuition at Gersh for both school years.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which declined to determine 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 2019-20 school year and found that the educational program and related services the district's Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for their son for the 2019-20 school year was appropriate.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Ha'Or Beacon School (Ha'Or Beacon) for the 2018-19 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the parents demonstrated that the student's unilateral placement at Ha'Or Beacon was appropriate for that year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to reimburse respondents (the parents) for their son's tuition costs at the Imagine Academy for Autism (Imagine), including transportation, for the 2019-20 school year.  The appeal must be sustained and the matter 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had failed to recommend an appropriate program for the student for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years. The parents appeal from the IHO’s failure to grant all of their requested relief.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's award of prospective tuition at Gersh Academy (Gersh) for the 2020-21 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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, 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) which denied her request for a determination that her son's pendency (stay put) placement was the Titus School (Titus) during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended education program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's use of the substantial similarity standard to determine the student's pendency placement.  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 increase the hourly rate paid by the district for their daughter's special education teacher for services provided during the 2018-19 school year.  The 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.  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 Storm King School (Storm King) for the 2018-19 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the WayPoint Academy (WayPoint) for the 2018-19 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and residential placement recommended by respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) for her son for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years was appropriate.  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 denied her request to be reimbursed for the cost of her daughter's tuition at a nonpublic school (NPS) for the 2016-17 school year. Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's denial of its motion to dismiss the parent's claims based on the IDEA's statute of limitations. The appeal must be dismissed. The cross-appeal must be sustained.

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 respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to fund the costs of her son's tuition at the Aaron School (Aaron) for the 2019-20 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.