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 ordered respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by LEAD Remedial Services (LEAD) for the 2024-25 school year at a reduced rate.  The district cross-appeals, arguing that the IHO erred by not addressing whether the parent's unilateral placement was appropriate and by awarding relief to the parent.  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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational placement recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for respondents' (the parents') daughter for the 2023-24 school year was not 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 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 EDopt, LLC (EDopt) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision denying its motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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Appeal Withdrawn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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that the district failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent (the parent's) son and ordered it to fund unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Encore Support Services (Encore) 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which did not rule on her request for pendency services for her son during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student for the 2024-25 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision asserting that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the parent's claims.  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 granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  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 granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his daughter's private services delivered by Education Optimized (EdOpt) for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice seeking the direct funding for the costs of special education services for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school year for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice seeking direct funding for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The appeal must be sustained, and the matter remanded to the IHO for further 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's private services delivered by EDopt, LLC (EDopt) for the 2023-24, and 2024-25 school years.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that held the district waived its affirmative defense to Education Law § 3602-c for the 2023-24 school year by developing an individualized education services program (IESP).  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of unilaterally obtained special education services delivered to her son by EDopt, LLC (EDopt) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which denied its motion to dismiss the due process complaint notice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed it's June 1st defense.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.

This State-level administrative review is being conducted pursuant to an order of remand issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see N.K.M. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 2024 WL 4803941 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2024]).  This proceeding initially arose 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), as relevant to this administrative review, previously appealed 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 reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Windward School (Windward) for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years.  Having provided the parties with an opportunity to be heard and upon reexamination of the hearing record of the impartial hearing proceedings, the prior State-level submissions and administrative decisions, as well as the District Court's order of remand, the evidence demonstrates that the district offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2021-22 school year.

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 EDopt, LLC (EDopt) and Premier Therapy Solutions LLC (Premier) for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.  The district cross-appeals, raising equitable considerations.  The appeal must 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the cost of her daughter's private services delivered by EDopt LLC (EDopt) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals, arguing that the IHO correctly determined that the unilateral placement was not appropriate and that equitable considerations disfavor the parent.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.  This matter must be remanded to the IHO for a ruling on the appropriateness of the speech-language therapy services that the agency provided to the student.

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 cost of her son's private services from EdZone, LLC (EdZone) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which rejected the district's arguments to dismiss the parent's claim.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.