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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered the district to set up a bank of funds, up to a defined amount, to allow the student to obtain services to work towards her General Educational Development (GED) test.  The parent cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which failed to address her child-find allegation and denied her request for compensatory educational services.  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Appeal Withdrawn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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that respondent (the district) failed to offer or provide the student with an appropriate educational program and services for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years but denied, in part, her request for reimbursement for tuition and private services, compensatory education, and independent educational evaluations, and placed certain restrictions on the award.  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 denied her request to be reimbursed for the costs of the student's tuition at the Adelphi Academy (Adelphi) 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their requests for reimbursement for the cost of their daughter's private reading instruction and compensatory educational services, and further determined that the district correctly found the student ineligible for special education during the 2020-21 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determinations that it violated its child find obligations during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and predetermined the eligibility determination and from the IHO's order that it reimburse the parents for a private evaluation and reevaluate the student.  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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational programs respondent (the district) recommended for her daughter for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years were appropriate and denied her request for compensatory education.  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 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) son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of the educational program recommended for the student for the 2022-23 school year.  The IHO found that the student was not entitled to pendency at the unilateral placement, Manhattan Children's Center (MCC), but was entitled to pendency services of special education itinerant teacher (SEIT) and related 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 dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice and granted the district's motion to dismiss.  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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that the district 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 Winston Preparatory School (Winston Prep) for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that respondent (the district) failed to offer or provide the student an appropriate educational program and services for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years but denied, in part, their request for compensatory education and placed certain restrictions on the award.  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 denied her request for direct funding of the cost of her son's privately obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) during the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent that the IHO did not dismiss the parent's request for SETSS based on the timing of her request and ordered the district to conduct a full educational evaluation of the student.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to directly fund the costs of the student's tuition at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered to provide an appropriate educational program to the student for that year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied the district's request for an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for the student and a psychiatric evaluation of the student.  Respondent (the parent) cross-appeals from the portions of the decision that found there was a substantial likelihood the student would harm himself or others if he was returned to his then-current placement and that Family of Kidz was an appropriate IAES for the student.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the respondents (the parents) resided in the district and that, therefore, the district was required to offer their son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2019-20 school year and a portion of the 2020-21 school year.  The parents cross-appeal from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied in part their request for tuition reimbursement for the cost of the student's attendance at the Grove School (Grove) during the 2019-20 school year and a portion of the 2020-21 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the respondent's (district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) was not responsible for creating an individualized education service program (IESP) for the parents' son for the 2022-23 school year because the parents' request for services was untimely.  The district cross-appeals, alleging that the parents failed to demonstrate an obligation to pay for the student's services or the appropriateness of such services.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.  The matter must be remanded to the IHO 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.  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 Mother Franciska Elementary School (MFES) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.