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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of their daughter's tuition at the International Academy for the Brain ("iBrain") for the 2024-25 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 request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's unilateral special education services delivered by HLER, LLC (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals arguing that the due process complaint notice should be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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) issued after remand that the parent's son's pendency required the respondent (the district) to reimburse the transportation costs only for the days the student attended the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2022-23 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 request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private paraprofessional services delivered by Upgrade Resources (Upgrade) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found the parent's unilaterally obtained services were appropriate and that equitable considerations warranted full funding, and further asserts a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied its motion to dismiss respondent's (the parent's) due process complaint notice based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the district to directly fund the costs of the student's privately-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Yes I Can Services, Inc. (YIC) for the 2023-24 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 that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund compensatory speech-language therapy for the student related to the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which rejected the district's arguments to dismiss the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained. The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

This State-level administrative review is being conducted subsequent to an order of remand issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for adjudication of petitioner's (the parent's) appeal of an impartial hearing officer's (IHO's) decision issued after remand (see Donohue v. Banks, 2023 WL 6386014 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2023]).  The parent appeals from an IHO decision issued after remand which clarified a pendency determination that respondent (the district) shall fund the costs related to providing transportation services to her son only for each school day that her son attended International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) during pendency.  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 dismissed her claims and denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 12-month 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's  decision to the extent the IHO did not find that the parent's unilateral placement at iBrain was inappropriate for the 12-month 2023-24 and 2024-25 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for relief for the 2024-25 school year finding that her claims were not ripe for adjudication and dismissed her complaint without prejudice.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found the parent was entitled to pendency and that the IHO had jurisdiction over claims related to implementation of equitable services.  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 from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered respondent (the district) to reimburse the parent for, rather than directly fund, the costs of her son's transportation for the 2023-24 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fully fund the costs of her son's transportation to and from the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2022-23 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which determined that the district failed to offer appropriate educational programming to the student for the 2022-23 school year.  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 parent) appeals from that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) from that portion of the decision which denied her request for compensatory education related to the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which, among other things, awarded the parent compensatory education through November 2024.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and related services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for their son for the 2023-24 school year were appropriate.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the student was entitled to receive compensatory educational services for missed pendency 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's tuition at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 school years and denied her request for compensatory education for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 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 from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) that dismissed his due process complaint notice against respondent (the district) without prejudice.  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 request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Grow With Us, LLC (Grow With Us) for the 2023-24 school year and dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's factual findings.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which, among other determinations, found that respondent (the district) did not violate its child find obligations during the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years.  The appeal must be sustained in part.