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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Succeed Support Services, LLC (Succeed) and Headway Services (Headway) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's alternative findings as to equitable considerations asserting that they would warrant a further reduction of any relief awarded.  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 her request for respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her son's unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Succeed Support Services, LLC (Succeed) and her son's unilaterally-obtained speech-language therapy services delivered by Headway Services (Headway) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Succeed Support Services, LLC (Succeed) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals that the IHO lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the parent's implementation claim.  The appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated and remanded for further proceedings. 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 found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) daughter during the 2021-22 and 2022-23 schools years, ordered it to reimburse the parent for her daughter's tuition at the Vincent Smith School (Vincent Smith) for the 2022-23 school year, and ordered it to reimburse the parent for various independent educational evaluations (IEEs) and private vision therapy services.  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 denied his requests that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his son's private services delivered by Urban Student Support (USS) for the 2023-24 school year and for compensatory education services.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the parent demonstrated the unilaterally obtained services were appropriate.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after remand which denied their request for direct funding of transportation costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) from respondent (the district) for the 2023-24 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for respondent (the district) to reimburse them for their daughter's tuition costs at the Magen Israel School for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which awarded compensatory education and required the district to develop a new individualized education program (IEP) for the student recommending specific services.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's unilaterally-obtained related services delivered by Always A Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must 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 that respondent (the district) fund the cost of the speech-language therapy services delivered to her son by Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) at specified rates for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's determination that the parent's unilaterally obtained counseling services were appropriate and asserts that equitable considerations do not favor direct funding.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private paraprofessional services delivered by Always a Step Ahead (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered the district to fund speech-language therapy and occupational therapy (OT) services delivered by Step Ahead for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by Think Pink, LLC (Think Pink) for the 2023-24 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, their request for compensatory education services and home-based applied behavior analysis (ABA) services for the 2023-24 school year.  The Respondent (district) cross-appeals alleging that the IHO should have further reduced or denied relief in the form of a prospective placement and home-based ABA services.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her son for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 dismissed with prejudice her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's tuition at the Yeled v'Yalda School (Yaled) for the 2023-24 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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of special education services to her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  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 that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied in part her request that respondent (the district) fund her daughter's unilaterally obtained services from EDopt, LLC (EDopt) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision that found that the unilateral services from EDopt were appropriate and that equitable considerations favored the parent.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.