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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and services the respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2020-21 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.  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 daughter's pendency (stay put) placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2020-21 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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of eight hours per week of privately-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) at an enhanced rate for the 2020-21 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent that the IHO did not deny the parent's requested relief based on the parent's failure to demonstrate a financial obligation to the private agency for the SETSS delivered to the student during the 2020-21 school year.  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APPEAL WITHDRAWN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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed by respondent (the district) for her son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2019-20 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Appeal Withdrawn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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, her request for compensatory educational services and other relief.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which awarded relief for the 2018-19 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part, and 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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of special education teacher support services (SETSS) from a private agency, AIM Further Inc., at a specified rate for the 2020-21 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision asserting that the parents' request for district funding of SETSS delivered by AIM Further Inc. for the 2020-21 school year should be denied for an additional ground and that the IHO's order for speech-language therapy be modified to conclude at the end of the 2020-21 school year.  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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for reimbursement from respondent (the district) for her son's tuition costs at Happy Hour 4 Kids (HH4K) for the 2020-21 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 Bais Frieda Child Care Center Inc. (Bais Frieda) for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2018-19 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered the student an appropriate educational program and denied their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at Gersh Academy (Gersh) for the 2019-20 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which held that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, and therefore, denied the parent's request for any relief.  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 his request to be reimbursed for his son's tuition costs at the Rebecca School 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.  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 Otto Specht School (Otto Specht) for the 2018-19 school year and the Longview School (Longview) for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered an appropriate educational program to the student for those 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 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 Child School for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent it failed to address the district's argument that the parent's claims relating to the 2017-18 school year were barred by the statute of limitations.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice challenging the special education and related services offered by respondent (the district) for her son during the 2019-20 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for respondent (the district) to directly fund both her son's tuition costs at the Manhattan Children's Center (MCC) for the 2020-21 school year and home-based services using an applied behavior analysis (ABA) methodology.  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 determined that the educational programs and related services the respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years were appropriate.  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.  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 (stay put) placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2020-21 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's amended interim decision determining that pendency at the Cooke School and Institute (Cooke) began on September 14, 2020.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.