Advance Decisions Search

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 be reimbursed for the cost of her daughter's special education services at an enhanced rate for the 2018-19 school year.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's determination that it failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and order that it fund the costs of the student's special education services at the district rate for the 2018-19 school 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for direct payment of special education teacher support services (SETSS) at an enhanced rate for the period of February 26, 2020 to June 30, 2020.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it denied an appropriate educational program to the student for 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her daughter's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for 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 which did not address whether her son's educational programming during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) was appropriate and which denied her request for relief based on equitable considerations.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found that it did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2019-20 school year and that the student's pendency placement was at iBrain.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed her due process complaint notice with prejudice. The appeal must be sustained, and as explained more fully below, remanded to the IHO 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice and held the educational program and services recommended by respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) for the student for the 2019-20 school year were appropriate.  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.  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 Rebecca School (Rebecca) and a home-based services program for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that Rebecca and the student's home-based services program was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student .  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 ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition, residential costs, transportation, and related services at the Middlebridge School (MBS) for the 2019-2020 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 a portion of their son's tuition costs at the Winston Preparatory School (Winston Prep) for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination which denied their request for the full costs of the student's attendance at Winston Prep for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 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.  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 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) daughter and ordered it to fund the costs of the home-based services for the student 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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for compensatory services and a developmental pediatric evaluation for her son 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO), which awarded the parent a portion of the amount of special education teacher support services (SETSS) she requested for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, and which denied the parent's request to increase the hourly rate paid by respondent (the district) for the student's SETSS.  The district cross appeals from the IHO's determination that the district did not offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ordered it to fund the costs of the student's special education services for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.  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 district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from that portion of an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent's (the parent's) daughter's pendency placement at the Shefa School (Shefa) was retroactive to the date of filing of the parent's due process complaint notice challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational placement for the student for the 2019-20 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 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 Lang School (Lang) for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.  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 denied its motion to dismiss the parent's claims based on the IDEA's statute of limitations.  Respondent (the parent) cross-appeals from the IHO's denial of reimbursement for a privately obtained neuropsychological evaluation.  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 determined that respondent (the district) offered the student an appropriate educational program and denied the parent's request to be reimbursed for her daughter's tuition costs at the Manhattan STAR Academy (STAR) for the 2019-20 school year, along with the costs of home-based services.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the Committee on Special Education (CSE) was required to have reconvened after the district conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of the student.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained.