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.  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 son'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 ordered it to fund the costs of the student's special education services at the district rate for the 2018-19 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 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') daughter and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their daughter's tuition costs at the Alpine Academy (Alpine) for 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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for failing to find that respondents' (the parents') son was eligible for special education services and awarding compensatory education.  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 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.

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 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.

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 compensatory education services and reimbursement for tuition costs at the Lang School (Lang) to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to provide their son with an appropriate educational program and services for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years. The appeal must be sustained in part.

Appeal Withdrawn

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.  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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request for the costs of the student's provider of special education teacher support services (SETSS) at an enhanced rate for the 2019-20 school year. 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 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that her son only required seven hours of special education teacher support services (SETSS) per week at a specific rate for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the educational services the Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for the student for the 2019-20 school year were not appropriate.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal, 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 student's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational programs for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The IHO determined that the student's pendency placement was the placement established, in part, based upon an unappealed IHO decision (November 2018 IHO decision).  In addition, the parents appeal from the IHO's final decision, which failed to award all of the relief requested in the due process complaint notice.  The appeal must be sustained in part.