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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which held that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, and therefore, denied the parent's request for any relief.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request to be reimbursed for his son's tuition costs at the Rebecca School for the 2019-20 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 denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Otto Specht School (Otto Specht) for the 2018-19 school year and the Longview School (Longview) for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered an appropriate educational program to the student for those school years.  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 to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at The Child School for the 2019-20 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent it failed to address the district's argument that the parent's claims relating to the 2017-18 school year were barred by the statute of limitations.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed her due process complaint notice challenging the special education and related services offered by respondent (the district) for her son during the 2019-20 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 determined that the educational programs and related services the respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years were 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.  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 (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 2020-21 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's amended interim decision determining that pendency at the Cooke School and Institute (Cooke) began on September 14, 2020.  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 respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to directly fund the cost of the student's tuition at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018-19 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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer a free appropriate public education to respondents' (the parents') daughter and ordered it to reimburse the parents for a portion of their daughter's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2019-20 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's decision which reduced the award of tuition reimbursement based on equitable considerations.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the respondent (the district) did not violate its child find obligations for the 2016-17 or 2017-18 school years and that the educational program and services that the district's Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for the student for the 2018-19 school year were appropriate and, therefore, denied the parent's request to be reimbursed for the costs of her daughter's tutoring expenses, as well as the cost of private evaluations, and her request for compensatory education.  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) son and ordered it to fund the parent's son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2020-21 school year, and to provide payment for the cost of transportation and related services for the 2020-21 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

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 her son's tuition costs at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2020-21 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that iBrain was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student and that equitable factors favored the parent's request for relief.  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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that it failed to meet its child find obligation during the 2018-19 school year, found respondent's (the parent's) daughter eligible for special education and related services, and ordered the district to reimburse the parent for her daughter's tuition costs at the Norman Howard School (Norman Howard) for the 2019-20 school year.  The parent cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which failed to address all of the issues raised in the due process complaint notice or to order compensatory education.  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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to reimburse respondent (the parent) for his daughter's tuition costs at the Millbrook School (Millbrook) and the Beekman School (Beekman) for the 2018-19 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.  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 Yeshiva Prep High School (Yeshiva Prep) for the 2019-20 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 his request for direct funding but granted tuition reimbursement for the cost of his son's tuition and related services at a nonpublic school (NPS) 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 the district failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and ordered the district to partially reimburse the parents for their son's tuition, maintenance, and costs at Heritage Schools Inc./The Heritage Community (Heritage) for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination which denied their request for full tuition, maintenance, and costs at Heritage.  The appeal must be sustained.  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 district or Harrison) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the district's Committee on Special Education (CSE) was responsible for creating an individualized education service plan (IESP) for respondent's (the parent's) son for the 2020-21 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.