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, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an impartial hearing officer's (IHO's) deferral of a decision regarding 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 2019-20 school year.  The appeal 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the parents' claims as moot.  The district joins in the parents' assertion that the IHO erred in dismissing the matter as moot, and cross-appeals from the IHO's finding that it failed to offer the student an appropriate educational program for the 2018-19 school year.  The appeal and 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, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an impartial hearing officer's (IHO) refusal to determine their son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  After the parents commenced their appeal, the IHO issued an interim order and determined that the student's pendency placement was at the International Academy of Hope (iHope), a private school, and ordered the district to fund the student's placement at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the pendency of this proceeding after finding that iBrain was substantially similar to iHope.

Under a separately initiated appeal, the district appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from the interim decision of the IHO that found the student's pendency placement could be implemented at iBrain.  The parents' appeal must be dismissed.  The district's appeal must be sustained.

This proceeding arises under 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 in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to reimburse the parents for the costs of 1:1 aide and related services for the 2019-20 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.  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 placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-2020 school year.  The IHO determined that the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) constituted the student's educational placement for pendency purposes.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's pendency determination.  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 found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to pay for the tuition costs at Lyman Ward Military Academy (Lyman Ward) for the 2017-18 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn

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.  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 Foreman School (Forman) for the 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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son for the 2016-17 school year and a portion of the 2017-18 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from those portions of the IHO's decision which determined that the educational program and related services that the district's Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for their son for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years were appropriate. 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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation at a cost not to exceed $5000.  The parent cross-appeals from that part of the IHO's decision which determined that the district's evaluations were appropriate.  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, 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 son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2019-20 school year.  The respondent cross-appeals the IHO's determination that the student's pendency placement was at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain).  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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to increase the hourly rate paid to the providers of the student's home-based applied behavior analysis (ABA) services 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 that part of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which failed to address his request to be reimbursed for a privately obtained neuropsychological evaluation of his son.  The appeal must be sustained.