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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied its motion to dismiss respondents' (the parents') claims regarding the student's programming for the 2022-23 school year as barred by the statute of limitations.  The appeal must be sustained.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (IEP), which is delegated to 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, 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 scope of this review is limited to the issue of the IDEA's statute of limitations.  Therefore, the facts and procedural history of this case and the IHO decision will not be recited in detail.

On May 27, 2022, the student's father electronically signed an enrollment contract with Shrub Oak International School (Shrub Oak) for the student's attendance for the 2022-23 school year (Parent Ex. G).[1]

On June 17, 2022, the parents provided the district with a 10-day notice stating that it had failed to convene a CSE meeting and develop an IEP for the student for the 2022-23 school year, that they would enroll the student at Shrub Oak for the 12-month 2022-23 school year, and that they would seek funding for that placement from the district (Parent Ex. B).  The parents alleged that the district's failure to develop an IEP and recommend a placement for the student constituted a "clear denial" of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (id. at p. 2).

On June 26, 2024, the parents filed a due process complaint notice, alleging that the district failed to develop an IEP for the student for the 2022-23 12-month school year, which resulted in a denial of a FAPE (Parent Ex. A).  As a remedy, the parents sought funding from the district for the student's unilateral placement at Shrub Oak (id.).  The student attended Shrub Oak for the 2022-23 12-month school year (Parent Exs. D; E; G).

The parties proceeded to an impartial hearing before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).  After a prehearing conference on September 30, 2024, an impartial hearing occurred on February 11, 2025 where the district moved to dismiss the parents' case as time-barred by the statute of limitations (Sept. 30, 2024 Tr. pp. 1-12; Feb. 11, 2025 Tr. pp. 1-19).[2]  The district argued that the parents knew or should have known of their claims on May 27, 2022, when the student's father signed the enrollment contract with Shrub Oak or at the latest, on June 17, 2022, the date the parents filed their 10-day notice (Feb. 11, 2025 Tr. pp. 5-7).  The parents opposed the district's motion to dismiss, arguing that the district had until July 1, 2022 to offer the student a FAPE, and therefore July 1, 2022 represented the earliest date that the parents knew or should have known of the claims that formed the basis of their complaint (Feb. 11, 2025 Tr. pp. 7-10).

In a decision dated February 11, 2025, the IHO denied the district's motion to dismiss the parents' claims as barred by the statute of limitations (IHO Decision at pp. 5-6).  The IHO rejected the district's argument that the parents' claims accrued on June 17, 2022 and instead found that July 1, 2022 was "the first actionable date" that formed the basis of the parents' complaint (id. at p. 6).  The IHO reasoned that because the student was a 12-month student, the district had until July 1, 2022, the first day of school, to provide the student with a FAPE (id.).  According to the IHO, "[i]t would be illogical for the statute of limitations to begin to run prior" to the date the parents had to file a due process complaint notice (id.).  The IHO reasoned, therefore, that since the parents filed their due process complaint notice on June 26, 2024, less than two years from the date they knew or should have known of the action that formed the basis of their complaint, the IHO ruled that the parents' claims were not barred by the IDEA's two-year statute of limitations (id.).

Next, the IHO determined that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2022-23 12-month school year as the district failed to present a case or any evidence (IHO Decision at pp. 6-7).  Additionally, the IHO found that Shrub Oak was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents (id. at pp. 7-9).  The IHO ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the student's enrollment at Shrub Oak for the 2022-23 12-month school year (id. at p. 10).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The district appeals and alleges that the IHO erred by failing to grant its motion to dismiss the parents' claims related to the 2022-23 school year as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for IDEA claims.  The district argues that the IHO erred in finding that the accrual date for the parents' claims was July 1, 2022 and should have found that June 17, 2022, the date the parents sent the district their 10-day notice, was the accrual date.  The district argues that the claims the parents asserted in the June 17, 2022 10-day notice were comparable, if not identical, to the claims asserted in their June 26, 2024 due process complaint notice and therefore the parents knew or should have known the district denied the student a FAPE on June 17, 2022.  The district further argues that the parents' argument that their claims did not become ripe until July 1, 2022 is misplaced.  

In their answer, the parents argue that the IHO properly determined that July 1, 2022 was the date that the parents knew or should have known of the action that formed the basis of their claims, and the IHO correctly denied the district's motion to dismiss.

V. Applicable Standards

The IDEA provides that a claim accrues on the date that a party knew or should have known of the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint and requires that, unless a state establishes a different limitations period, the party must request a due process hearing within two years of that date (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][C]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6][B]; Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 34 CFR 300.507[a][2], 300.511[e]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][i]; Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 114-15 & n.8 [2d Cir. 2008]; M.D. v. Southington Bd. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 221-22 [2d Cir. 2003]).[3]  Because an IDEA claim accrues when the parent knew or should have known about the claim, "determining whether a particular claim is time-barred is necessarily a fact-specific inquiry" (K.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2014 WL 3866430, at *16 [E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2014]; see K.C. v. Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 WL 4757965, at *14 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018] [collecting cases representing different factual scenarios for when a parent may be found to have known or have had reason to know a student was denied a FAPE]).  Further, two exceptions to the statute of limitations may apply to the timelines for requesting impartial hearings.  The first exception applies if a parent was prevented from filing a due process complaint notice due to the district withholding information from the parent that the district was required to provide under the IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][D][ii]; 34 CFR 300.511[f][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][i]).  A second exception may apply if a parent was prevented from filing a due process complaint notice due to a "specific misrepresentation" by the district that it had resolved the issues forming the basis for the due process complaint notice (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][D]; 34 CFR 300.511[f]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][i]).

VI. Discussion

In this matter, the alleged action by the district underlying the parents' due process complaint notice was its failure to convene a CSE, develop an IEP, and offer a placement for the student for the 2022-23 12-month school year.  Thus, the district correctly asserted in its motion to dismiss that the parents' claims accrued at the time the parents knew of the district's failure.  As the district argued at the impartial hearing and continues to argue on appeal, the parents knew the basis for their claims related to the 2022-23 school year at the latest by June 17, 2022, the date that they sent their 10-day notice to the district.  The parents' June 17, 2022 10-day notice emphasized that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE by not convening a CSE, developing an IEP or recommending a placement for the student for the 2022-23 school year (Parent Ex. B).  The parents further advised the district in the June 17, 2022 10-day notice that they intended to unilaterally place the student at Shrub Oak for the 2022-23 extended school year and would seek funding from the district (id.).  The parents did not file their due process complaint notice until June 26, 2024, and asserted nearly identical allegations that the district failed to provide the student a FAPE for the 2022-23 school year (Parent Ex. A).

Based on the "knew or should have known" outlined above, whether or not the parents' claim is "ripe" is irrelevant to the necessary inquiry.  Thus, based upon the documentary evidence in the hearing record, on June 17, 2022, the parents knew of their claims for the 2022-23 12-month school year when the parents sent the district a 10-day notice containing claims identical to those asserted in the due process complaint notice (compare Parent Ex. A at pp. 1-2, with Parent Ex. B at pp. 1-2).  Therefore, as the parents did not initiate their due process complaint for the 2022-23 12-month school year within two years of the date they knew or should have known of the claims asserted therein, the parents' claims for the 2022-23 12-month school year are time-barred by the IDEA's statute of limitations.  Thus, the IHO erred by denying the district's motion to dismiss the parents' claims for the 2022-23 school year.

VII. Conclusion

Having determined that the IHO should have dismissed the parents' claims related to the 2022-23 12-month school year as being outside of the statute of limitations, the parents' claims for the 2022-23 12-month school year are barred by the statute of limitations.  The IHO's order granting the parents reimbursement for the cost of the student's tuition at Shrub Oak for the 2022-23 12-month school year must be reversed.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that the IHO decision dated February 11, 2025 is modified by reversing the portion which found that the parents' claims regarding the 2022-23 12-month school year were not barred by the statute of limitations; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IHO decision dated February 11, 2025 is modified by reversing the portions which granted the parents reimbursement for the cost of the student's tuition at Shrub Oak for the 2022-23 12-month school year.