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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the entire annual cost of their son's tuition at Imagine Academy Inc. (Imagine Academy) for the 12-month 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which determined that the educational program recommended by its Committee on Special Education (CSE) for the parents' son for the 10-month 2023-24 school year was not appropriate and ordered the district to fund the cost of a private neuropsychological evaluation.  The appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated, 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.  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 unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by EDopt, LLC (EDopt) during the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the parent's claims.  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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') daughter and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their daughter's tuition at the Windward School (Windward) 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) to the extent it did not grant her request for respondent (the district) to fully fund the costs of her daughter's transportation services pursuant to her contract with Sisters Travel and Transportation Services, LLC (Sisters Travel), which provided for the student's travel to and from the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which granted respondent's (the district's) motion to dismiss the parents' claims pertaining to the 2021-22 school year as barred by the statute of limitations.  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 found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to fund the student's private services delivered by Alpha Student Support (Alpha) 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 dismissed their due process complaint notice with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ruled, in the alternative, that the private special education services unilaterally obtained and delivered to the student from Yes I Can Services Inc. (Yes I Can) during the 2023-24 school year were appropriate, and which directed the district to reevaluate the student and recommend appropriate educational programming.  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 the decisions of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which severed the parent's claims in a due process complaint notice into separate proceedings, upheld a manifestation determination review (MDR) team's determination that the student's behavior was not a manifestation of her disability, sustained a school imposed disciplinary suspension, and determined that the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2023-24 school year was 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed their due process complaint notice pertaining to the 10-month portion of the 2024-25 school year and limited the student's pendency entitlement to the date of the IHO's decision.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered it to fund the costs of private special education services obtained by the parent during summer 2024 and which extended the student's pendency entitlement past summer 2024.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.  The matter is 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of their daughter's private services for the 10-month portion of the 2024-25 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found no reason to reduce the requested award on equitable grounds.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the educational programs respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for their son for the 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 school years were appropriate and denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition at the Imagine Academy (Imagine) 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 tuition at Yeshivat Kinyan Torah Learning Academy (YKT Learning Academy) for the 2023-24 school year. The district cross-appeals the issue of equitable considerations.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an impartial hearing officer's (IHO) refusal to determine their daughter's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) educational program recommended for the student 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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it violated its child find obligations with respect to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their unilaterally obtained private tutoring services for the period of March 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.  The parents cross-appeal that portion of the IHO's decision which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition at The Gow School (Gow) for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.  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 that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals, arguing that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.  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 in part her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Always a Step Ahead Inc. (Step Ahead) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which awarded funding for counseling 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 that part of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request that respondent (the district) fund compensatory education and transportation to and from the requested services for the student for 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 dismissed the parent's claims on the basis that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider them and denied his request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his son's private services delivered by Future Plus Services, LLC (Future Plus) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals, arguing that the IHO erred in finding that the services provided by Future Plus were appropriate.  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 that part of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which did not award funding for the full costs of services provided to her son by Little Apple Services, LLC (Little Apple) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals asserting that the IHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.