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 to be reimbursed for her son's tuition at the YKT Learning Academy School (YKT) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2023-24 school year and that equitable considerations favor the parent.  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 those portions of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which rendered a pendency determination and ordered respondent (the district) to partially fund her son's special education services from Kids Further Inc. (Kids Further) during the 2022-23 and 2024-25 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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that her claims for the 2021-22 school year were barred by the statute of limitations and that the educational programs respondent (the district) had recommended for her son for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years were appropriate.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by a specified provider at the requested rates for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals, asserting that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition at the Bay Ridge Preparatory School (Bay Ridge) 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which, among other things, denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's private services delivered by providers of her choosing at specified rates for the 12-month 2024-25 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's findings related to its obligation to provide services for the 2024-25 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part and the matter remanded for further proceedings.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) prospectively fund the costs of their son's tuition at Gersh Academy (Gersh) and home-based applied behavioral analysis (ABA) services for the 2024-25 school year.  The district cross-appeals, arguing that equitable considerations support denial of the parents' requested relief.  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 her claim with prejudice.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals, alleging that IHOs do not have subject matter jurisdiction to address the parent's allegations.  The appeal must be sustained and the matter remanded to the IHO 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed her due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals, asserting alternative grounds to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice based on the evidence presented during the impartial hearing.  The appeal must be sustained, the cross-appeal dismissed, 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, 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 respondents' (the parents') son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of petitioner's recommended educational program for the student for the 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed at a contracted rate for the costs of her son's private services delivered by Kids Further Inc. (Kids Further) for the 2024-25 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the cost of her daughter's tuition at Big N Little: TOL/OYYL Program (the private school) 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.  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 HLER, LLC, (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's findings related to its obligation to provide services for the 2023-24 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Yes I Can Services Inc. (Yes I Can) for the 2023-24 school year and her request for compensatory education.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's decision raising alternative grounds to deny the parent's requested relief.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which reduced the award of reimbursement/direct funding of her daughter's tuition at the Hamaspik School (Hamaspik) for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which granted in part tuition reimbursement/direct funding for Hamaspik.  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 dismissed her due process complaint notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained, and, as explained herein, 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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private special education services unilaterally obtained from Yes I Can Services Inc. (Yes I Can) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that the parent met her burden to prove that the unilaterally obtained services were appropriate for the student for the 2023-24 school year and also asserts that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the parent's claims.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed her request that respondent (the district) directly fund and/or reimburse the parent the costs of her son's private services delivered by Gold Key Learning LLC (Gold Key) for the 2023-24 school year for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision.  The appeal must be sustained and the matter remanded to the IHO for determinations regarding the relief requested by the parent.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.