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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of privately-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) at a specified rate 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for compensatory education to remedy claims arising from the student's 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years.  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') child and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their child's tuition costs at the Flex School (Flex) for a portion of the 2019-20 school year. The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's determination which found that the district complied with child find requirements.  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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and services recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondents' (the parents') daughter for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years were not appropriate and which ordered prospective relief.  The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied their requests for tuition reimbursement and compensatory educational services.  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 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) son for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years and ordered the district to fund compensatory education.  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 International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that respondent (the district) failed to offer or provide the student with an appropriate educational program and services for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years and denied in part certain compensatory education 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.  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 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, as well as their request to be reimbursed for private tutoring services during the 2017-18 school year.  The parents further request that the IHO's order for a neuropsychological evaluation be affirmed.  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) determining the pendency placement of respondents' (the parents') son during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year and dismissing the merits of the matter as moot.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for compensatory education, among other requested relief, arising from claims concerning her daughter's education during the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for expenses associated with their daughter's attendance at the Atlas Autism School (Atlas) for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's award of prospective compensatory relief.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 reduced their requested reimbursement for their daughter's tuition costs 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 that year.  The appeal must be sustained.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of special education services and compensatory education services at an enhanced rate for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years. 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered appropriate educational services to their daughter and denied their requests for an evaluation and the provision of specific special education services.  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 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) son and ordered it to pay for tuition costs at the Fusion Academy (Fusion) for the 2019-20 school year.  The parent cross-appeals from the IHO's determination which denied her request for certain educational evaluations as equitable relief.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.