Decisions

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, in part, the parent's request for compensatory education services, as well as an order of placement at a State-approved nonpublic school, to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to provide the student an appropriate educational program and services for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to order respondent (the district) to provide for her daughter's future education in a private school.  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 determined that the educational program and services recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondents' (the parents') son for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years were not appropriate.  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Appeal Withdrawn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 their son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018-19 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that iBrain was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student for that 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, 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