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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund compensatory education related to the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied its request to dismiss the parent's claims.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

This State-level administrative review is being conducted pursuant to an order of remand issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for adjudication of petitioners' (the parents') appeal of an impartial hearing officer's (IHO's) decision issued after remand (see R.Z. v. Banks, 24-CV-4401 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024]).  The parents appeal from an IHO decision issued after remand which clarified a pendency determination that respondent (the district) shall reimburse the parents for the costs related to providing transportation services to their son only for each school day that their son used the transportation services.  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) issued after remand, which denied her request to be reimbursed by the respondent (the district) for her daughter's tuition at the Special Torah Education Program (STEP) for the 2021-22 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his son's special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Proceed Services, Inc. (Proceed Services) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting, in pertinent part, that the IHO incorrectly denied its motion to dismiss the parent's claims based on a lack of subject 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 that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for funding of private services delivered by HLER, LLC (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals, among other things, that portion of the IHO's decision which determined that the student was eligible for equitable services for the 2023-24 school year under State law. The appeal must be dismissed. The cross-appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.

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 for respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her daughter's home-based services for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to recommend an appropriate educational program for the student and ordered it to fund the student's tuition costs at Manhattan Children's Center (MCC) for the 2023-24 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fully fund the costs of her daughter's private special education services delivered by McDonald Enhanced Learning (McDonald Learning) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parent's requested relief and which directed the district to convene a Committee on Special Education (CSE) to develop an individualized education program (IEP) or an individualized education services program (IESP) for the student for the 2024-25 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational programs respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years were 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 from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice regarding the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for his son 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 daughter's private services delivered by Yeled v'Yalda for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that the IHO lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.  The cross-appeal must be denied.

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 their son's tuition costs at the Cooke School and Institute (Cooke) during the 2022-23 school year.  The district cross-appeals, seeking in pertinent part, the dismissal of the appeal due to the parents' untimely service of a request for review.  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 private services delivered by EdZone, LLC (EdZone) at a specified rate for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of their son's private special education services delivered by Yes I Can for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered funding for speech-language therapy services.  The appeal must be sustained.  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 to be reimbursed for the costs of their son's tuition at the SINAI School (SINAI) for the 2021-22 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fully fund the costs of her daughter's private special education teacher support services (SETSS) provided during 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 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 Big N Little TOL/OYYL Program (TOL/OYYL) 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 his request that respondent (the district) fund compensatory education special education teacher support services (SETSS) for the student related to the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which rejected the district's arguments to dismiss the parent's claims.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Always A Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which determined that the district waived the requirement for written notice from the parent by June 1 and further asserts that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the parent's claims.  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.  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 son's private special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Always a Step Ahead Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that the IHO erred in awarding funding for speech-language therapy and counseling services delivered by Step Ahead for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.