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 denied her request for reimbursement for the student's tuition costs at the Big N Little: Ziv Hatorah Program (Big N Little) for July and August of 2021.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational program/services recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondents' (the parents') son for the 2022-23 school year was not appropriate.  The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's failure to reach certain additional claims underlying the parents' allegation that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).  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Appeal Withdrawn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) appeals from a 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 for the 2022-23 school year and awarded compensatory education.  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 respondent (the district) properly implemented the educational program and related services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for the student for the 2020-21 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, 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 during a due process proceeding challenging the provision of the district's recommended educational program to the student for the 2022-23 school year.  The IHO found that the student's pendency placement was based on the last agreed upon individualized education services program (IESP) developed on March 1, 2022.  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, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from that portion of an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining her daughter'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 that limited the rate to be paid for pendency services.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the student is entitled to pendency.  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 determined that the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years was appropriate, and which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the Fusion Academy (Fusion) for the 2021-22 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 district funding of the costs of special education teacher and speech-language therapy services for her daughter delivered by Enhanced Support Services Inc. (Enhanced) during 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the parent failed to timely request equitable services pursuant to Education Law Section 3602-c for the 2022-23 school year and dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice with prejudice.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO decision which found that the student was entitled to pendency.  The appeal must be sustained and 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 partially denied their request for payment for their son's privately obtained program provided Reach for the Stars Learning and Developing LLC (RFTS-LD) at Reach for the Stars Learning Center (RFTS-LC) during the 2021-22 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the student's pendency placement is a services-based program provided by RFTS-LD.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for reimbursement for the student's tuition costs at Ha'or – The Beacon School (Beacon) for the 2020-21 school year.  This 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') daughter for the 2022-23 school year 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.  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 a portion of the 2021-22 school year and reduced the amount of requested reimbursement for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that iBrain was an appropriate unilateral placement and the IHO's award of partial reimbursement for the 2022-23 school year.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for changes to the individualized education program (IEP) that respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her son for the 2022-23 school year, compensatory education, and other relief.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered the district to fund a placement of the parent's choosing if the district failed to develop an IEP and identify a placement for the student.  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 that portion of the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which awarded respondents (the parents) direct funding or reimbursement for tuition, related services, a 1:1 paraprofessional, a 1:1 nurse, transportation, and fees for the student's attendance at the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2022-23 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 denied her request that respondent (the district) directly fund the student's tuition at the John Cardinal O'Connor School (Cardinal O'Connor School) for the 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 from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Eagle Hill School (Eagle Hill) for the 2020-21 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to the student for that 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the Big N Little: Ziv Hatorah Program (Ziv Hatorah) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.