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 those portions of  a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's (the student's) private services delivered during the 2022-23 and 2023-24 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (the IHO) which dismissed the parents' due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parents' claims.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parents' due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parents' claims following an impartial hearing.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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.  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 tuition at the Shrub Oak International School (Shrub Oak) for the 2024-25 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to offer the student appropriate educational programming for the 2024-25 school year and the IHO's finding that equitable considerations favor the parents.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed and the matter 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parents' due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parents' claims following an impartial hearing.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parents' due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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 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 EdZone, LLC (EdZone) 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the parents' due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the cost of her daughter's private services from EdZone, LLC (EdZone) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision only to the extent that the IHO declined to dismiss the parent's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2024-25 school year. The appeal must be sustained in part and the matter remanded to the IHO 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 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 and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the ELIJA School (ELIJA) for the 2022-23 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 Limud, Inc. (Limud) for the 2023-24 school year.  The parent also appeals from the order of the IHO which directed the district to perform evaluations of the student and for the parent to provide consent.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision asserting that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must 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 Yes I Can 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.  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 daughter's tuition at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) 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 granted, in part, the parent's request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private special education services delivered by Yeled v'Yalda ECC (Yeled), as well as to have the district provide her son's related services, for the 2023-24 school year, and dismissed her claims, in part, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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 denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition at the YKT Learning Academy School (YKT) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2023-24 school year and that equitable considerations favor the parent.  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 those portions of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which rendered a pendency determination and ordered respondent (the district) to partially fund her son's special education services from Kids Further Inc. (Kids Further) during the 2022-23 and 2024-25 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that her claims for the 2021-22 school year were barred by the statute of limitations and that the educational programs respondent (the district) had recommended for her son for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years were appropriate.  The appeal must be sustained in part.