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 district) appeals from those portions of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the IDEA's statute of limitations did not bar respondents' (the parents') claims relating to their daughter's 2018-19 school year and which required the district to reimburse the parents for the costs of an independent educational evaluations (IEE) of the student.  The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's decision which rejected their specific arguments relating to the application of the statute of limitations and which limited the amount that the district would be required to fund for the costs of the IEE.  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APPEAL WITHDRAWN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, in part, his request for compensatory educational services and other relief.  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 found that respondent (the district) offered the student an appropriate educational program and denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2019-20 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision ordering the district to reevaluate the student and develop a new IEP. 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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered the student appropriate special education programming and denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the IVDU – Boy's High School (IVDU) 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 daughter's tuition costs at the Windward School (Windward) for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it met all procedural requirements in its review of the student's eligibility for special education as a student with a disability.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-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 it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) daughter and ordered it to extend the student's age-eligibility from September 2020 through December 2020, to review the student's transition plan, and as needed, to evaluate the student.  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 determined that the educational program and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for the student’s 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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed by respondent (the district) for their son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2020-21 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that equitable considerations did not bar an award of tuition reimbursement to the parents.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed, with prejudice, their due process complaint notice that sought reimbursement for their son's tuition costs at the IVDU Upper School (IVDU) for the 2018-19 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 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 Southport School (Southport) for the 2020-21 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed, without prejudice, her request for compensatory educational services.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals those portions of the IHO's decision which determined that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and which directed the district to continue to provide the student with pendency placement services until the parties developed an agreed-upon IEP, as well as funding various independent educational evaluations (IEEs).  The appeal must be sustained in part, the cross-appeal must be sustained in part, and for reasons set forth below, the matter must be 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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of privately obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) at an enhanced rate 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 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 for the 2020-21 school year and ordered it to fund compensatory education services.  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 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 2020-21 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that the IHO erred in awarding district funding for the student's tuition and related expenses at iBrain.  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 in part her requests for relief to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to provide the student with an appropriate educational program and services for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years.  The appeal must be dismissed.