Decisions

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn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 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.  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.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn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.  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 Kinship Resources, LLC (Kinship Resources) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals raising equitable considerations.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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Appeal Withdrawn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 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 Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision awarding compensatory education services.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their child's tuition at Three Points Center (Three Points) 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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son during the 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 school years and ordered it to reimburse the parents for the costs of their son's tuition at the Flex School (Flex) for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.  The appeal must be sustained.

Petitioner (the district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after a remand that was so ordered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see V.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2024 WL 1120033 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2024]).  The IHO determined after remand that the district shall directly fund and/or reimburse the parent for transportation services from February 9, 2021 through the end of 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of their son's private transportation services to and from his unilateral placement at the International Academy for the Brain ("iBrain") for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered it to conduct an assistive technology evaluation.  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 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 Always a Step Ahead (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from a portion of the IHO's decision, alleging that the IHO should have dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice on the ground that the student was not entitled to equitable services from the district for the 2023-24 school year.  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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Learning Learners, LLC (Learning Learners) 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.  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 tuition at the Big N Little: Bnos Menachem Program (Bnos Menachem) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's equitable determinations finding.  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 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 Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that equitable considerations warrant a denial of all relief.  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 her request for reimbursement or direct funding for the costs of unilaterally-obtained occupational therapy (OT) services delivered to her son by Always A Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead or agency) during the 2023-24 school year.  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 denied his request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his daughter's private services delivered by Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals, raising equitable considerations that it asserts would also support denial of the parent's requested relief.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.