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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Yaldeinu School (Yaldeinu) for the 2018-19 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Appeal Withdrawn.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 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), which determined her 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 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.  The IHO determined that the student's pendency placement was the placement established pursuant to the student's April 10, 2018 individualized education program (IEP).  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 granted their request to be reimbursed by respondent (the district) for their son's tuition costs at the Rivendell School (Rivendell) for the 2018-19 school year and did not address their request for reimbursement for related services.  The appeal must be sustained.

Appeal Withdrawn.

This proceeding arises under 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 have the respondent (the district) provide home-based special education itinerant teacher (SEIT) services to her son in his nonpublic school (NPS) for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.  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Appeal Withdrawn.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 those portions of an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed parent's claims related to the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years as barred by the IDEA's statute of limitations and those portions of a final decision which denied relief sought by the parent to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to provide her son with an appropriate educational program for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years.  The district cross-appeals certain findings related to equitable considerations.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed and the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.

Apeal 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 determined that the educational program and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for the student for the 2018-19 school year were appropriate.  The appeal must be dismissed.

This proceeding arises under 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 services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2018-19 school year 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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from a portion of an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) following remand, which determined respondent's (the parent's) son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the district's recommended educational program for the student for the 2018-19 school year.  The IHO found that the student's pendency placement was at iBrain.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational programs and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years were not appropriate, but did not order all of the relief the parent had requested.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 determined that the educational program and services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years were appropriate.  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 district) appeals, 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 respondent's (the parent's) daughter's pendency placement was at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of petitioner's recommended educational program for the student 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program and related services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for her son for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years were appropriate.  The appeal must be sustained in part.