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 determined that the educational programs and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years were not appropriate, but did not order all of the relief the parent had requested.  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Appeal Withdrawn.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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years were appropriate.  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 respondent's (the parent's) daughter's pendency placement was at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of petitioner's recommended educational program for the student 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 parent) appeals 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 her son for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years were appropriate.  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Appeal Withdrawn.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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) following remand, 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 Grove School (Grove) for a portion of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which reimbursed their son's tuition costs at the Hyde School (Hyde) for the 2018-19 school year, rather than reimbursing them for their son's tuition costs at Hyde for the 2017-18 school year as requested in the due process complaint and at the impartial hearing.  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.  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 the student were appropriate.  For reasons explained more fully below, the matter must be remanded to the IHO for further administrative proceedings.

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 Fusion Academy (Fusion) for a portion of the 2016-17 school year, the entire 2017-18 school year, and for future school years.  The appeal must be sustained in part, and, for reasons explained more fully below, the matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings.

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 placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended education program for the student for the 2018-2019 school year.  The IHO found that the student's pendency placement was the placement established pursuant to the student's March 20, 2015 individualized education program (IEP). The appeal must be remanded for further proceedings.

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) that granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss her due process complaint notices.  The appeal must be sustained in part and, for reasons explained more fully below, the matter is remanded to an IHO for further administrative proceedings.

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 attendance at Step Forward for the 2015-16 school year and to be awarded compensatory educational services.  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 failed to address her request to be reimbursed for, or for respondent (the district) to directly fund, the costs of the student's tuition at the Happy Hour 4 Kids School (HH4K) for the 2018-19 school year.  The parent also appeals that portion of the IHO's decision calculating an award of compensatory educational services.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's calculation of compensatory educational services.  For reasons explained below, the appeal must be sustained in part, the cross-appeal must be sustained in part, and the matter must be remanded to the IHO for further administrative proceedings.

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 respondent's (the district's) Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) had recommended for his son for the 2017-18 school year was appropriate.  The appeal must be dismissed.