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 dismissed his due process complaint notice against respondent (the district) with prejudice.  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Appeal Withdrawn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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Kinship Resources, LLC (Kinship) for the 2023-24 school year.  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 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 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 son's tuition and special transportation costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2023-24 school years and for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which denied the district's application to dismiss the parent's claims with regard to the 2021-22 school year as time-barred due to the statute of limitations; held that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 school years; and directed the district to conduct certain evaluations of the student.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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) that dismissed the parent's due process complaint without first determining his daughter'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 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's failure to rule on its motion to dismiss and the award of compensatory relief.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO II) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's private services delivered by Applied ABC for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years and denied her request for reimbursement of a private evaluation.  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 daughter's tuition costs at the Grove School and related transportation costs 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 for their daughter's attendance at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2023-24 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which upheld a manifestation determination review (MDR) team's determination that the student's behavior was not a manifestation of her disability and sustained a school imposed disciplinary suspension 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) to the extent it awarded an incorrect dollar amount for respondent (the district) to reimburse her for the costs of private special education services she unilaterally obtained for her son during the 2022-23 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that ordered it to reimburse the costs of the student's private services for the 2022-23 school year.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund compensatory education for her daughter for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.  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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Beyond Support Services, LLC (Beyond Support) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that equitable considerations constitute a bar to relief and that the IHO did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.  The appeal must 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 dismissed her due process complaint seeking, in pertinent part, an order requiring respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her son's tuition at the Shirley Aninias School (Shirley Aninias) from April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 of the 2023-24 school year on the basis of res judicata with prejudice.  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 her due process complaint notice against respondent (the district) with prejudice.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) reimburse her for Orton-Gillingham tutoring services provided during the 2022-23 school year and the costs of her son's tuition at the Norman Howard School (Norman Howard) for the 2023-24 school year.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Succeed Support Services, LLC (Succeed) and Headway Services (Headway) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's alternative findings as to equitable considerations asserting that they would warrant a further reduction of any relief awarded.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her son's unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Succeed Support Services, LLC (Succeed) and her son's unilaterally-obtained speech-language therapy services delivered by Headway Services (Headway) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.