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Appeal Withdrawn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 district) appeals from that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son for the 2016-17 school year and a portion of the 2017-18 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from those portions of the IHO's decision which determined that the educational program and related services that the district's Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for their son for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years were appropriate. 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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation at a cost not to exceed $5000.  The parent cross-appeals from that part of the IHO's decision which determined that the district's evaluations were appropriate.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.

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 placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The respondent cross-appeals the IHO's determination that the student's pendency placement was at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from that part of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which failed to address his request to be reimbursed for a privately obtained neuropsychological evaluation of his son.  The 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 respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to directly pay for the tuition costs at Bonim Lamokom (Bonim) for the 2018-19 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 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 assign a 1:1 aide to the student at the student's parochial school to implement a sensory diet, and ordered the district and the parent to agree on the particulars of the sensory diet.  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 an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining the pendency placement of respondent's (the parent's) son during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2018-19 school year.  The IHO found that the student's pendency placement was at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  The appeal must be sustained and the cross-appeal must be sustained in part, and the matter must be remanded to the IHO.

Appeal Withdrawn

This proceeding arises under 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 fully fund the special education teacher support services (SETSS) she obtained for the student for a portion of 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 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 respondent's (the parent's) son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district'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 International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  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.  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') daughter'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 International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) 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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which directed it to fund a functional behavioral assessment and behavioral intervention plan (FBA/BIP) for the student to be completed by the respondent's (the parent's) chosen provider at a prevailing rate.  The district also appeals from the IHO's decision which ordered that the student's travel time be limited to no more than 45 minutes each way. 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 daughter's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain)  for the 2018-19 school year. The 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 a portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) granting monetary payment as relief due to its failure to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') daughter.  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 respondent's (the parent's) son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of district'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 International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  The appeal must be dismissed.