I. Introduction

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 Higher Level Education Resources, LLC (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

When a student who resides in New York is eligible for special education services and attends a nonpublic school, Article 73 of the New York State Education Law allows for the creation of an individualized education services program (IESP) under the State's so-called "dual enrollment" statute (see Educ. Law § 3602-c).  The task of creating an IESP is assigned to the same committee that designs educational programing for students with disabilities under the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482), namely a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]).  If disputes occur between parents and school districts, State law provides that "[r]eview of the recommendation of the committee on special education may be obtained by the parent or person in parental relation of the pupil pursuant to the provisions of [Education Law § 4404]," which effectuates the due process provisions called for by the IDEA (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][b][1]).  Incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]).  First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]).  An IHO typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][2][A], [h][1]-[3]; 34 CFR 300.512[a][1]-[4]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]).  The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]).

A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (SRO) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]).  The appealing party or parties must identify the findings, conclusions, and orders of the IHO with which they disagree and indicate the relief that they would like the SRO to grant (8 NYCRR 279.4).  The opposing party is entitled to respond to an appeal or cross-appeal in an answer (8 NYCRR 279.5).  The SRO conducts an impartial review of the IHO's findings, conclusions, and decision and is required to examine the entire hearing record; ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process; seek additional evidence if necessary; and render an independent decision based upon the hearing record (34 CFR 300.514[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 279.12[a]).  The SRO must ensure that a final decision is reached in the review and that a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review, except that a party may seek a specific extension of time of the 30-day timeline, which the SRO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[b], [c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k][2]).

III. Facts and Procedural History

The evidence in the hearing record regarding the student's educational history is sparse. Briefly, a CSE convened on April 27, 2018, and, finding the student eligible to receive special education as a student with a learning disability, developed an IESP for the student recommending that the student receive five sessions per week of group special education teacher support services (SETSS) (Parent Ex. B at pp. 1, 5).[1]^, [2]

The hearing record includes a letter dated August 22, 2023, with a subject line of "TEN (10) DAY NOTICE" and the salutation "Dear Chairperson," from Prime Advocacy, LLC (Prime Advocacy), which indicated Prime Advocacy was authorized to communicate on the parent's behalf (Parent Ex. D).  This letter advised the "Chairperson" that the district had failed to assign the student a provider to deliver the student's mandated services for the 2023-24 school year (id.). According to the letter, the parent requested the district "fulfill the mandate" or the parent would be "compelled to unilaterally obtain the mandated services through a private agency at an enhanced market rate" (id.).

Evidence in the hearing record indicates the student received five hours per week of private individual SETSS services from HLER during the 2023-24 school year (Parent Exs. C; G at pp. 1-4).

A. Due Process Complaint Notice

In a due process complaint notice dated May 15, 2024, the parent, through an advocate with Prime Advocacy, alleged the district failed to develop and implement a 2023-24 school year program for the student, thereby denying the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (see Parent Ex. A at p. 1).  According to the parent, the district impermissibly shifted its responsibilities to the parent when it failed to "supply providers for the services it recommended" and, further, "failed to inform the [p]arent how the services would be implemented" (id. at p. 2).  The parent further alleged she was unable to procure a provider willing to accept the district's standard rates but found a provider willing to provide the student with his mandated SETSS for the 2023-24 school year at enhanced rates (id.).  Among other relief, the parent sought pendency, an order directing the district to fund the costs of the student's programming consisting of five hours per week of SETSS at enhanced rates, and an award of compensatory educational services for any mandated services not provided by the district (id. at p. 3).

The district replied to the parent's due process complaint notice via a due process response dated August 9, 2024 (IHO Ex. II).  As is relevant to this appeal, the district denied the material allegations in the parent's due process complaint notice, requested "the [p]arent be ordered to appear at the next scheduled appearance," objected to any representation of the parent unless the parent was present, and advised of the district's intention to pursue all applicable defenses, including but not limited to "a defense against any claims or requested relief alleged pursuant to Education Law § 3602-c on the basis that the parent failed to timely send a written request for equitable services by June 1 of the preceding school year" (id. at pp. 1-2).  

B. Impartial Hearing Officer Decision

An impartial hearing convened before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) on September 18, 2024 (see Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 1).  As described in greater detail below, prior to the hearing, the IHO issued a subpoena for the parent to testify, and during the September 18, 2024 hearing, the parent's advocate presented a letter and email dated May 9, 2023, which the district objected to due to lack of authentication and the absence of a genuine signature (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 5-7;  Parent Ex. E; IHO Ex. III). The IHO admitted letter and email dated May 9, 2023 into evidence, considering it relevant to the parent's claim of sending a request for dual enrollment services prior to June 1 (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 7). The district introduced several exhibits, including SESIS logs, to demonstrate the parent's failure to request services on or before June 1, 2023, which logs the parent's advocate did not contest (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 8-10; Dist. Ex. 3).

The parent's advocate later argued that the district failed to raise the June 1 defense in writing as required, but the IHO found the parent was on notice and required to testify, and that the IHO would be requiring both the parent and someone from the CSE region to testify (IHO Ex. V; Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 13-15).  On November 25, 2024, the hearing resumed, and the district's witness testified that no correspondence from the parent was found in the SESIS logs for the 2023-24 school year (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 9-21, 30-32). The parent testified to preparing and sending the May 2023 correspondence herself and initially claimed the email address used was hers, but was later questioned on that point (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 24-28).

In a decision dated January 14, 2025, the IHO found that the parent did not submit a request for equitable services by June 1 for the 2023-24 school year (IHO Decision at p. 6).  The IHO noted that she did not find the parent's testimony or evidence of submitting a timely request for services credible or persuasive (id. at p. 5).  The IHO also found in the alternative that the unilateral services that the parent secured for the student in the 2023-24 school year were inappropriate, in part, because they were based on an outdated IESP (id. at p. 6).[3]   Accordingly, the IHO denied the parent's request for relief and dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice with prejudice (id.).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent appeals, with the assistance of a lay advocate from Prime Advocacy, and alleges that the IHO erred by allowing the district to assert a June 1 affirmative defense as it was not timely raised in accordance with the IHO's rules.  Similarly, the parent argues the IHO incorrectly allowed the DOE to subpoena the parent, in violation of the IHO's rules.[4]  The parent further asserts that, even if the June 1 defense was timely raised, the evidence in the record supports a finding that the parent did in fact request equitable services for the student on May 9, 2023.  Finally, the parent appeals the IHO's determination that the parent's unilateral placement for the student in the 2023-24 school year was not appropriate.

In an answer, the district asserts the district properly raised and prevailed on its June 1 defense, the parent failed to show that the unilateral placement was appropriate, and that the IHO's decision should be upheld.

V. Applicable Standards

A board of education must offer a FAPE to each student with a disability residing in the school district who requires special education services or programs (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][1][A]; Educ. Law § 4402[2][a], [b][2]).  However, the IDEA confers no individual entitlement to special education or related services upon students who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools (see 34 CFR 300.137[a]).  Although districts are required by the IDEA to participate in a consultation process for making special education services available to students who are enrolled privately by their parents in nonpublic schools, such students are not individually entitled under the IDEA to receive some or all of the special education and related services they would receive if enrolled in a public school (see 34 CFR 300.134, 300.137[a], [c], 300.138[b]).

However, under State law, parents of a student with a disability who have privately enrolled their child in a nonpublic school may seek to obtain educational "services" for their child by filing a request for such services in the public school district of location where the nonpublic school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2]).[5]  "Boards of education of all school districts of the state shall furnish services to students who are residents of this state and who attend nonpublic schools located in such school districts, upon the written request of the parent" (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][a]).  In such circumstances, the district of location's CSE must review the request for services and "develop an [IESP] for the student based on the student's individual needs in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP]" (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][b][1]).  The CSE must "assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district (id.).[6]  Thus,  under State law an eligible New York State resident student may be voluntarily enrolled by a parent in a nonpublic school, but at the same time the student is also enrolled in the public school district, that is dually enrolled, for the purpose of receiving special education programming under Education Law § 3602-c, dual enrollment services for which a public school district may be held accountable through an impartial hearing.

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 184-85 [2d Cir. 2012]).

VI. Discussion – June 1 Deadline

The parent claims the district did not timely raise the June 1 defense during the impartial hearing, giving the parent insufficient notice of the defense to allow her a full and fair opportunity to respond.  In addition, the parent alleges that the evidence does not support the IHO's dismissal of the matter for the parent's failure to send a June 1 notice for the 2023-24 school year.

The State's dual enrollment statute requires parents of a New York State resident student with a disability who is parentally placed in a nonpublic school and for whom the parents seek to obtain educational services to file a request for such services in the district where the nonpublic school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2]).

The issue of the June 1 deadline fits with other affirmative defenses, such as the defense of the statute of limitations, which are required to be raised at the initial hearing (see M.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 15 F. Supp. 3d 296, 304, 306 [S.D.N.Y. 2014] [holding that the limitations defense is "subject to the doctrine of waiver if not raised at the initial administrative hearing" and that where a district does "not raise the statute of limitations at the initial due process hearing, the argument has been waived"]; see also R.B. v. Dep't of Educ. of the City of New York, 2011 WL 4375694, at *4-*6 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011] [noting that the IDEA "requir[es] parties to raise all issues at the lowest administrative level" and holding that a district had not waived the limitations defense by failing to raise it in a response to the due process complaint notice where the district articulated its position prior to the impartial hearing]; Vultaggio v. Bd. of Educ., Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 216 F. Supp. 2d 96, 103 [E.D.N.Y. 2002] [noting that "any argument that could be raised in an administrative setting, should be raised in that setting"]).  "By requiring parties to raise all issues at the lowest administrative level, IDEA 'affords full exploration of technical educational issues, furthers development of a complete factual record and promotes judicial efficiency by giving these agencies the first opportunity to correct shortcomings in their educational programs for disabled children.'" (R.B. v. Dep't of Educ. of the City of New York, 2011 WL 4375694, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011], quoting Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14, 19 [E.D.N.Y. 1995] and Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298, 1303 [9th Cir. 1992]; see C.D. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 4914722, at *12 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2011]).

As noted above, the IHO signed a witness subpoena directing the parent to appear and testify in the matter (see IHO Ex. III).  At the September 18, 2024 hearing, the IHO requested the parent advocate identify the parent's exhibits.  Included within the parent's proposed exhibits was a letter and email dated May 9, 2023 and referred to as "a June 1st letter" (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 5).[7]  The district objected to admission of the May 9, 2023 correspondence because the parent's purported signature was only a typed-out "S", there was no authentication of the signature, and the email was not from the parent's email (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 6).  The district's attorney argued that "absent parent testimony, there [was] no indication that the parent had any involvement in the signing or sending of this letter" (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 6).  The parent's advocate responded by asserting that the typed "S signature is [a] well-established electronic signature," the parent was copied on the email, and the parent felt it "important to make a record that the parent made timely notice" (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 6-7).  The IHO admitted the May 9, 2023 correspondence into evidence, stating the letter was relevant to the parent establishing she sent a June 1 notice (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 7; Parent Ex. E).  Next, the district sought to admit six exhibits into evidence, including an exhibit which consisted of event logs from 2017-19 and 2022-24 for the student that were part of the district's special education student information system (SESIS) (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 8; see Dist. Ex. 3).  The parent's advocate objected to three of the district's six proposed exhibits but did not object to admission of the SESIS logs (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 9; see Dist. Ex. 3).  The district agreed to withdraw one of its exhibits (a published decision), and the remainder of its exhibits were admitted by the IHO (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 10).

The district's attorney then advised "the [d]istrict has asserted that the [p]arent did not request services for the '23/'24 school year . . . by June 1st" and any evidence presented by the parent does not sufficiently evidence a timely request (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 11-12).  The IHO noted  and both parties confirmed that the SESIS logs and May 9, 2023 correspondence were intended as evidence of their respective positions of the June 1 dispute (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. p. 13).  The IHO stated that the June 1 argument dealt with credibility and the documents at issue would require authentication (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 13, 15).  The IHO advised she required the parent and someone from the CSE, who was responsible for updating the SESIS logs, to appear and provide testimony (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 13-15).  The matter was then adjourned until November 25, 2024 (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 14-15).

The evening of September 18, 2024, the parent's advocate emailed the IHO and district, alleging the district failed raised the June 1 affirmative defense in writing, at least ten-days prior to the hearing, as required by the IHO's rules (IHO Ex. V).  The parent's advocate requested that the IHO prohibit the testimony of a CSE witness to authenticate the SESIS logs and relieve the parent from testifying at the hearing because the June 1 defense was not raised by the district (id.).  The IHO was unpersuaded by the parent's request because the parent was on notice of the district's affirmative defense and there was a subpoena directing the parent to testify (IHO Decision at p. 2).[8]

The district called its witness, a teacher who works for the district's CSE number seven (CSE 7) (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 9-10).[9]  The witness testified to her familiarity with SESIS, describing SESIS as a student information system used for district students who are eligible for special education, whether attending public school or parentally placed in a nonpublic school (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 9-11).  The witness stated that parental notices of intent for an upcoming school year would be uploaded to SESIS and recorded in the SESIS's events log and that she personally uses SESIS on a daily basis to upload documents (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 9-11).

The witness was then directed to the SESIS logs (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 9-11).  Using a June 5, 2024 entry as an example, the witness stated such entries were generated when something is received from a student's parent (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 12).  The witness further testified, that based on the event log for the student, "there was no correspondence from the parent during the '23-24' school year, which also would include the parent notice of intent for the '23-24' school year" and if the district had received it, then the SESIS event log would indicate receipt (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 12-13).  The witness explained that in preparation for her testimony, she checked within SESIS to confirm whether or not the parent's request for the 2023-24 school year was received and as "sometimes things get overlooked" she also searched the CSE 7 mailbox to see if any email regarding the student was received by CSE 7 requesting services for the 2023-24 school year (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 13).  The witness described her search as including anything from the parent, the parent's email address, the student's name, the student's identification number, and a search of emails received from parentssubmissions@gmail.com, the email address from which the parental request for the student's 2023-24 equitable services was purportedly sent on May 9, 2023, as well as the subject line of the email listed in the May 9, 2023 correspondence (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 13-14; Parent Ex. E at p. 2). The witness stated her searches found no email or letter and "if they did receive it, it would have been uploaded . . . in SESIS" (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 15).

During cross-examination, the parent's advocate asked the CSE 7 witness why the May 9, 2023 correspondence was not uploaded to SESIS to which the witness replied "[w]e never received it" (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. 16; see Parent Ex. E).  After the parent's advocate completed cross-examination of the CSE 7 witness, the IHO questioned the witness.  The IHO inquired how communications from parents are processed and who has access to the CSE 7 mailbox (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 17-18).  The witness offered to share her screen and demonstrate how she conducted her search of the CSE mailbox, which the IHO permitted (id. at p. 18).  As requested by the IHO, the witness entered several of the search terms referenced above, including the child's first name (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 18-20).  The IHO asked the witness to narrow the search parameters to April 27, 2024 and the email address parentssubmissions@gmail.com (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 21), which as further described below, the IHO later realized was an error.  No results for the student were found related to the April 27, 2024 date, however, correspondence about other students from parentssubmissions@gmail.com were found (id.).

After the district's witness was excused, the parent testified that she recognized the May 9, 2023 correspondence as she sent it to the district as notice that the student would not attend public school (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 26; see Parent Ex. E).  When asked when the May 9, 2023 correspondence was sent to the district, the parent responded that she sent on "June 1st" (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 27).  Next the parent was asked if she recognized the email address parentssubmissions@gmail.com, and she responded that she did (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 27).  When asked by her advocate "[c]an you tell us who[se] email that is" the parent responded "[m]y email" (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 27).[10]  The parent's advocate again asked the parent if parentssubmissions@gmail.com was her email to which the parent then responded it was not (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 27).  The parent spelled out her email and stated she was copied on the email in the May 2023 correspondence which was sent on the parent's behalf (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 27; see Parent Ex. E).  The district cross-examined the witness, asking if she personally sent the May 2023 correspondence to which the parent answered "Yeah. Yes" (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. p. 28).

Next, the CSE 7 witness was recalled by the IHO because the IHO realized that she had mistakenly asked the witness to search the CSE 7 mailbox for correspondence on April 27, 2024 rather than May 9, 2023 (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 30-31).  The district's witness conducted a search of the CSE 7 mailbox for the email address parentssubmissions@gmail.com and for the student's name on May 9, 2023 (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 30-32).  There was no correspondence from that email, or any email, pertaining to the student found in the CSE 7 mailbox (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 30-32).

In this case, find that the June 1 defense was timely asserted by the district and the parent's argument to the contrary is baseless. The evidence shows that the district initially identified its plan to assert the June 1 affirmative defense in its due process response, dated August 9, 2023, approximately forty-days before the parties' initial appearance before the IHO (IHO Ex. II).  Then, importantly, district raised the June 1 affirmative defense at the September 18, 2024 hearing, a hearing which was then adjourned for more than two months to facilitate further development of the record with regards to this defense (Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. pp. 12-13).  Given the initial notification of the June 1 defense in the due process response, extensive discussion of the defense at the party's initial appearance, and adjournment of the matter for more than two months to allow all the parties to prepare their June 1 evidence and arguments, the IHO did not err in allowing the district to assert the June 1 defense.  Furthermore, the record indicates the parent had ample notice of the defense to allow for a full and fair opportunity to address it at the hearing on November 25, 2024.

Having determined that the district was not precluded from raising the June 1 defense, I now turn to the parties' arguments over the IHO's finding that "the [p]arent failed to establish a timely request for equitable services for the 2023-2024 school year" was sent to the district as required by Education Law § 3602-c (IHO Decision at p. 6).

As described above, the IHO required the parties to engage in an extensive factual inquiry with witness testimony from both sides due to conflicting documentary evidence.[11]

Here, the hearing record supports the IHO's finding that the parent failed to demonstrate she properly notified the district of her request for equitable services for the 2023-24 school year.  The district witness testified that CSE 7 never received the parent's May 2023 letter, and that testimony was supported by the documentary evidence—namely, the district's SESIS event log—and further corroborated by the sharing of the witness's screen to demonstrate how her search was conducted (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 11-24, 30-32; Dist. Ex. 3).  By contrast, the parent's testimony was contradictory, not only refuted by the district's evidence, but by the documentary evidence the parent herself offered into evidence.  The May 9, 2023 letter and email indicates it was sent on May 9, 2023, on behalf of the parent (Parent Ex. E).  However, the parent confusingly testified that she herself drafted and sent the May 9, 2023 letter on June 1, 2023, stated that the email account from which it was sent was hers, and then waivered back and forth, saying it was not her email but continued to assert that she emailed the letter to CSE 7 (Nov. 25. 2024 Tr. pp. 26-28).  After the district's witness was recalled by the IHO to demonstrate a search for the May 9, 2023 correspondence, and again testified in contrast there was no letter at all for the student (Nov. 25, 2024 Tr. pp. 30-32), and the parent had no further evidence to rebut the district's witness or documentary evidence in support of her view of events regarding the May 9, 2023 correspondence.

Upon my independent review of the hearing record, I find that the IHO relied on the proper legal standards to support her conclusion that the parent failed to comply with the June 1 notification requirement of Education Law § 3602-c, that the decision also demonstrates that the IHO carefully recited and considered the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by both parties, and carefully marshalled and weighed the evidence in support of her conclusions.  The IHO also found the parent's testimony not credible, and generally, an SRO gives due deference to the credibility findings of an IHO, unless non-testimonial evidence in the hearing record justifies a contrary conclusion or the hearing record, read in its entirety, compels a contrary conclusion (see Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 524, 528-29 [3d Cir. 1995]; P.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New York, 2015 WL 787008, at *16 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015]; M.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 320, 330 [E.D.N.Y. 2012], aff'd 725 F.3d 131 [2d Cir. 2013]; Bd. of Educ. of Hicksville Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Schaefer, 84 A.D.3d 795, 796 [2d Dep't 2011]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-076).  Here, the evidence in the hearing record does not lead me to a contrary conclusion and, instead, I agree with the IHO that the parent's version of events regarding transmission of the May 9, 2023 correspondence to the district was not credible.

I find that the IHO in this matter conducted a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the relevant evidence and controlling authority and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb her finding that the parent failed to timely request equitable services for the student for the 2023-24 school year under the dual enrollment statute and, therefore, district was under no obligation to implement an IESP for the student.

VII. Conclusion

Having found the parent failed to comply with the requirements to timely send a written request for dual enrollment services in accordance with Education Law § 3602-c (2), the necessary inquiry is at an end.

I considered the parties' remaining contentions and find I need not address them in light of my determination herein.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.