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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from that portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for reimbursement for the costs of placing their son at Imagine Better Impact (IBI) for a portion of the 2017-18 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at Fit Learning (FIT) for a portion of the 2017-18 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that respondent's (the district's) issuance of a local diploma to the student in June 2019 was appropriate.  The appeal is 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Appeal Withdrawn.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 a 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') daughter for the 2018-19 school year were appropriate, but which nonetheless ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of related services and special transportation during the 2018-19 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied their request for tuition reimbursement at the International Institute for the Brain (iBRAIN) for the 2018-19 school year.  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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the special transportation services recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondent's (the parent's) son for the 2018-19 school year were not appropriate.  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 those portions of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for reimbursement of privately obtained services and compensatory education services to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to implement its individualized education services program (IESP) for the 2017-18 school year and failure to offer equitable services to her son for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which awarded the student prospective placement in a State-approved nonpublic school at public expense.  The appeal must be sustained.  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 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) daughter and ordered it to reimburse the parent for the student's tuition costs at a high school in the Eden Central School District (Eden) for the 2018-19 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed their due process complaint notice.  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 funding from respondent (the district) to conduct certain independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at her requested rates.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 dismissed her claims related to the 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 school years as barred by the IDEA's statute of limitations.  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 to be reimbursed for her daughter's tuition costs at the Lowell School (Lowell) for the 2018-19 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 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) daughter and ordered it to reimburse the parent for the costs of the student's tuition and related services at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018-19 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).  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 determined that the educational programs respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for her son for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years were appropriate and denied, in part, the parent's requests for further evaluation of the student.  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 determined that the respondent (the district) was not responsible for the lack of implementation of the program and services recommended for her daughter by the Committee on Special Education (CSE)  for the 2018-19 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 awarded compensatory educational services to the student.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO 2) which dismissed without prejudice their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018-19 school year. Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from IHO 2's dismissal without prejudice and requests referral back to IHO 2 for further proceedings.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be sustained.