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 determined that the educational program and related services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for the student for portions of the 2022-23 and 2023-24 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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the respondent (the district) met its child find obligations for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years and denied their request to be reimbursed for the full cost of their son's unilaterally obtained private services during the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years.  Respondent cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the district failed to demonstrate that it offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for a portion of the 2021-22 school year and the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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Appeal Withdrawn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) appeals from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO I) related to the student's placement during the pendency of this proceeding, as well as from those portions of the decision of an IHO (IHO II) which found that Reach for the Stars Learning Center (RFTS-LC) was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student and awarded direct funding to Reach for the Stars Learning and Developing, LLC (RFTS-LD) for the costs of the student's private services at RFTS-LC for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondents (the parents) cross-appeal from those portions of IHO II's decision which denied on equitable grounds direct funding for the total costs of their son's private services provided at RFTS-LC. The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn

These proceedings arise under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  With respect to Appeal No. 23-147, petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, relief sought by the parent to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to offer and provide the student an appropriate educational program and services for the 2022-23 school year.  With respect to Appeal No. 23-159, the parent appeals from the decision of an IHO that dismissed her due process complaint notice relating to the 2022-23 school year with prejudice.  As appeals Nos. 23-147 and 23-159 involve the same student, the same school year, and overlapping issues, they will be decided together.  The appeals 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 that portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which declined to award compensatory education relief upon finding that respondent (the district) failed to offer the student an appropriate program for the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years.  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 their son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, her request to be reimbursed for, or for respondent (the district) to directly fund, special education teacher support services (SETSS) and occupational therapy (OT) services at the requested hourly rates for the 2022-23 school year and which wholly denied her request for compensatory educational services.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's determination ordering any and all relief to the parent.  The appeal must be sustained in part, the cross-appeal must be dismissed, and as explained below, the matter must be remanded 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be fully reimbursed for her son's paraprofessional services for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's award of relief to the parent.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which did not order compensatory education services as relief to address respondent's (the district's) alleged failure to offer or provide appropriate services to the student for the 2021-22 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered it to fund private services obtained by the parent for his son for the 2021-22 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, in part, her request for relief for respondent's (the district's) failure to provide education services to her daughter for the 2022-23 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that ordered it to fund the costs of private special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by WBT Learning is Fun (WBT) during the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to partially reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Reach For the Stars Learning Center (RFTS-LC) for the 2022-23 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination which denied their request for full tuition reimbursement.  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 dismissed the parent's 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 to be reimbursed for the costs of her daughter's private 1:1 tutoring for the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years.  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 International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for public funding of an independent educational evaluation (IEE) for her daughter.  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 pay, in part, the parent's son's tuition costs at Reach for the Stars (RFTS) for the 2021-22 school year. The parent cross-appeals from the IHO's determination which denied her request for full payment of the cost of her son's tuition at RFTS.  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 denied their request to be fully reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Irving Montak SINAI School at SAR Academy (SINAI School) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.