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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after remand which denied their request for respondent (the district) to fully fund the costs of their daughter's unilaterally-obtained special education and related services for the 2024-25 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

This appeal arises from an IHO's decision issued after a remand by an SRO for the IHO to determine whether the parents' unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate for the student for the 12-month, 2024-25 school year, based on the totality of the circumstances (Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-459).  In addition, the SRO directed that the IHO may consider additional evidence; and further consider whether the parents established their financial responsibility for the cost of the student's private services; and, if warranted, determine whether the equities support the parents' request for relief.  Lastly, the SRO determined that the student was entitled to pendency services in accordance with an unappealed October 18, 2023 IHO decision, which consisted of district funding for 12-month services of 10 periods per week of individual special education teacher support services (SETSS) in Yiddish, two 30-minute sessions per week of individual  counseling in Yiddish, three 30-minute sessions per week of individual occupational therapy (OT), two 60-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy, and a full-time paraprofessional.  As the parties' familiarity with this matter is presumed, the student's educational history and the procedural history of this matter will not be recited here in detail except as relevant to the instant appeal.

Briefly, the hearing record in this matter indicates that a CSE convened on June 27, 2023, found the student eligible for special education as a student with autism, and developed and IESP with a projected implementation date of September 7, 2023 (Dist. Ex. 2 at p. 1).[1]  The June 2023 CSE recommended that the student receive 10 periods per week of group SETSS (Yiddish); two 30-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy (Yiddish); three 30-minute sessions per week of individual OT; and two 30-minute sessions per week of individual counseling (Yiddish) (Dist. Ex. 2 at pp. 7-8).  According to the student's mother, the CSE reconvened on June 30, 2023, to develop an IEP for summer 2023 (Parent Ex. M ¶ 7).  The student's mother reported that the student was recommended to receive 10 periods per week of group SETSS, along with unspecified frequencies or durations of speech-language therapy, OT and counseling, as well as a full-time 1:1 health paraprofessional for summer 2023 (id.).[2]

On May 28, 2024, the student's mother electronically signed a contract with Yes I Can Services Inc. (Yes I Can) for the "2024-2025 extended" school year (Parent Ex. I at pp. 1, 3, 4).  According to the contract, Yes I Can would provide the student with 10 hours per week of SETSS, and 40 hours per week of paraprofessional services (id. at p. 3).[3]  By signing the contract, the parent agreed that she would "testify at the impartial hearing office at the dates and times assigned by the [district]" (id. at p. 2).  Yes I Can agreed that it would "prepare [the parent] with … legal representative for [the parent's] appearance" (id.).  The parent further agreed that "it [wa]s [he]r responsibility to pay any balance of any fee that [wa]s not covered by the [district] prospective payment," that she was "aware of the schedule of fees which [we]re incorporated by reference," and that she agreed "to share [her] financial information with [Yes I Can's] team upon request" (id.).

On July 1, 2024, the student's mother signed a contract with SpeechLearn, P.C. (SpeechLearn) for the provision of two 60-minute sessions per week of speech-language therapy in Yiddish at a rate of $320 per hour (Parent Ex. J at pp. 1-2).[4]  The contract provided that SpeechLearn would "make every effort to implement the recommended services … for the 12M 2024-25 school year" (id. at p. 1).  The parent "confirm[ed] that [she was] liable to pay Speech Learn the full amount for all recommended services … delivered by SpeechLearn for the 12M 2024-25 school year in the event that [the parent wa]s unable to secure funding from the [district] or elsewhere" (id. at p. 2).

 According to the student's mother, she obtained OT and counseling services from private providers (Parent Ex. M ¶ 12).  The hearing record does not include contracts with those providers, however, the occupational therapist offered testimonial evidence and a July 2024 progress report and the parents offered documentary evidence of invoices, payments and a progress report from the student's counselor (Parent Exs.  G; N ¶ 6; T-V).

The parents filed a due process complaint notice dated July 1, 2024, alleging that the district failed to convene a CSE to develop an updated IEP and IESP for the 2024-25 school year and failed to implement the student's last agreed upon program of services for the 2024-25 school year (Due Process Compl. Not. at pp. 1, 3).[5]  As relief, the parents sought funding of the cost of the student's unilaterally-obtained services for the entire 12-month school year at the providers' enhanced rates and compensatory education services for the district's failure to implement the student's educational program in a timely manner (id. at p. 3).

On August 7, 2024, the parties proceeded to an impartial hearing before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and in a decision dated September 11, 2024, the IHO found that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the summer 2024 (Tr. pp. 1-28; Sept. 11, 2024 IHO Decision at p. 13).  In connection with the 10-month school year, the IHO found that the district's failure to develop an IESP for the 2024-25 school year did not amount to a substantive denial of a FAPE because the district still had time to develop a program for the student before the commencement of the 10-month 2024-25 school year (Sept. 11, 2024 IHO Decision at p. 14).  Additionally, the IHO found that the parents' implementation claim for the 10-month school year was not ripe for adjudication and dismissed the parents' claim regarding implementation of services for the 10-month school year without prejudice (id. at pp. 13-15).

Next, the IHO examined whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement/direct funding for the unilaterally-obtained SETSS and related services provided to the student for the 2024-25 school year (Sept. 11, 2024 IHO Decision at pp. 13-14).  Here, the IHO found that the parents were not entitled to funding for the counseling and OT services because there was a lack of evidence in the hearing record as to contracts, session logs, or invoices, to establish the parents' financial obligation to the providers (id. at p. 14).  With respect to the SETSS, paraprofessional services, and speech-language therapy, the IHO found no reason to reduce the contracted rates as the district did not argue they were excessive nor did it raise any equitable concerns (id.).

The IHO ordered the district to fund pendency services from July 1, 2024 through the date of the September 11, 2024 decision and to immediately convene a CSE and develop an IESP for the 2024-25 school year (Sept. 11, 2024 IHO Decision at p. 15).[6]  In addition, the IHO ordered the district to directly fund, to the extent not already funded through pendency, the cost of unilaterally-obtained services provided to the student between July 1, 2024 and September 11, 2024, as follows: up to 10 hours of SETSS per week at an hourly rate of $200.00; up to two hours of speech-language therapy per week at an hourly rate of $320.00; and full-time paraprofessional services at a rate of $70.00 per hour (id.).  The IHO also ordered the district to reimburse the parents for counseling services provided to the student during summer 2024 in the amount of $275.00 (see id. at pp. 6, 15).

The parents appealed and the district cross-appealed the IHO's September 11, 2024 decision.  An SRO issued a decision on the parties' appeals on January 24, 2025, remanding the matter to the IHO for a determination as to whether the unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate for the student for the 12-month, 2024-25 school year based on the totality of the circumstances (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-459).

Following remand, no further hearing dates were scheduled, and the parents submitted the following additional evidence to which the district did not object: affidavit from the educational director of Yes I Can (educational director) (Parent Ex. S); February 2025 counseling progress report (Parent Ex. T); counseling invoices (Parent Ex. U); and proof of payment for the counseling services (Parent Ex. V).  Additionally, the parents submitted supplemental closing arguments (see IHO Ex. I).

After remand, on March 17, 2025, the IHO issued a decision finding that the parents failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the unilaterally-obtained SETSS, paraprofessional services, speech-language therapy, and counseling services were appropriate for the student (Mar. 17, 2025 IHO Decision at p. 15).  The IHO also found no evidence in the hearing record that the student received services during the summer besides "vague testimony" regarding the summer services and determined, based on the information provided on remand, that the counseling services did not begin until September 2024 (id.).  The IHO explained that there was insufficient evidence in the hearing record to demonstrate how the unilaterally-obtained services were implemented, how the services met the student's needs, how the student performed in her mainstream program, and if any academic progress was made (id.).  The IHO stated that the parents had the opportunity to submit new evidence upon remand, but there were no SETSS progress reports, speech-language therapy progress reports, or OT progress reports (id.).  The IHO found a lack of evidence for any services provided to the student after July 2024 (id.).  The IHO also found that the evidence submitted on remand provided information with respect to the paraprofessional services but was unclear about the name of the individual providing the services (id.).  Next, the IHO found evidence in the hearing record about the student's "serious behavioral issues in school that render[ed] her a danger to herself and others" but there was a lack of evidence as to the manner in which those behavioral concerns were addressed at school and how the behaviors impacted the student's functioning in the classroom (id.).  Lastly, the IHO found that the hearing record did not include any objective evidence of progress (id.).  Accordingly, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the IHO held that the parents failed to demonstrate that the unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate for the student (id. at pp. 15-16).

Next, the IHO addressed equitable considerations and found that any award of relief would be reduced (Mar. 17, 2025 IHO Decision at p. 16).  The IHO found that the parents would not be entitled to relief for the unilaterally-obtained OT services because there was no evidence of a financial obligation on the part of the parents (id.).  In connection with the parents' other unilaterally-obtained services, the IHO found that relief was warranted for those sessions that could be substantiated with documentary evidence (id.).  The IHO found that the rates for the SETSS, paraprofessional services, and speech-language therapy warranted reduction (id.).  The IHO found the "maximum reasonable rates" as follows: $143.30 for SETSS, $50.16 for the paraprofessional, and $215 for speech-language therapy (id.).  The IHO dismissed the parents' claims with prejudice (id.).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parents appeal, arguing that the IHO erred in finding that they failed to meet their burden to establish that the unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate and denied the parents requested relief.  The parents argue that the IHO relied "heavily on the lack of progress reports, session logs and session notes" in determining whether the unilateral services were appropriate (Req. for Rev. ¶ 6).  Next, the parents argue that the IHO improperly found a discrepancy in the hearing record based on the presence of two names associated with the student's paraprofessional services.  The parents assert that the IHO should have asked for clarification that the student had two providers over the course of the school year and the IHO erred by discrediting the parents' evidence.  As for SETSS, the parents argue that June 2024 progress report offered a comprehensive overview of the student's development and understanding of her needs and together with the plan of remediation for the 2024-25 school year show that the strategies and goals in the plan aligned with the student's "trajectory" from the 2023-24 school year (id. ¶ 16).  For both speech-language therapy and OT services, the parents assert that the lack of progress reports "is not a dispositive factor" in determining the appropriateness of the services (id. ¶¶ 20, 22).  In connection with the IHO's findings on the lack of financial obligation of the parents, they argue that it was the responsibility of the district to fund the services through pendency and therefore, a "contractual obligation" was not required (id. ¶¶ 23-24).  Further, the parents assert that the reduced rates for speech-language therapy and paraprofessional services were not supported by the hearing record.  As relief, the parents request that the district be ordered to fund 10 periods per week of 1:1 SETSS at the rate of $200 per hour; two 30-minute sessions per week of individual counseling in Yiddish, at the rate of $275 per hour; three 30-minute sessions per week of individual OT at the rate of $250 per hour; two 60-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy at the rate of $320 per hour; and a full-time 1:1 paraprofessional at the rate of $70 per hour for the 12-month, 2024-25 school year.

In an answer, the district generally denies the material allegations contained in the request for review.  The district argues that none of the unilaterally obtained services were appropriate and the parents failed to meet their burden of proof.  Additionally, the district argues that equitable considerations favor the district but in the alternative, if the unilateral services are found to be appropriate, the hourly rate should be reduced.

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]).[7]  "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.).[8]  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

The district has not appealed the finding that it denied the student a FAPE for the 12-month, 2024-25 school year (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-459).  Accordingly, these findings have become final and binding on the parties and will not be reviewed on appeal (34 CFR 300.514[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]; see M.Z. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 WL 1314992, at *6-*7, *10 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013]).

A. Unilaterally-Obtained Services

In this matter, the student has been parentally placed in a nonpublic school and the parents do not seek tuition reimbursement from the district for the cost of the parental placement.  Instead, the parents alleged that the district failed to implement the student's mandated public special education services under the State's dual enrollment statute for the 2024-25 school year and, as a self-help remedy, they unilaterally obtained private services for the student without the consent of the school district officials, and then commenced due process to obtain remuneration for the costs thereof.  Generally, districts that fail to comply with their statutory mandates to provide special education can be made to pay for special education services privately obtained for which a parent paid or became legally obligated to pay, a process that is essentially the same as the federal process under IDEA.  Accordingly, the issue in this matter is whether the parents are entitled to public funding of the costs of the private services.  "Parents who are dissatisfied with their child's education can unilaterally change their child's placement . . . and can, for example, pay for private services, including private schooling.  They do so, however, at their own financial risk.  They can obtain retroactive reimbursement from the school district after the [IESP] dispute is resolved, if they satisfy a three-part test that has come to be known as the Burlington-Carter test" (Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519, 526 [2d Cir. 2020] [internal quotations and citations omitted]; see Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 14 [1993] [finding that the "Parents' failure to select a program known to be approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement."]).

The parents' request for district funding of privately-obtained services must be assessed under this framework.  Thus, a board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services they obtained for a student if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 252 [2d Cir. 2009]).[9]  In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).  "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).

Turning to a review of the appropriateness of the unilaterally-obtained services, the federal standard for adjudicating these types of disputes is instructive.

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129).  Citing the Rowley standard, the Supreme Court has explained that "when a public school system has defaulted on its obligations under the Act, a private school placement is 'proper under the Act' if the education provided by the private school is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits'" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 11; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203-04; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see also Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] ["evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]).  A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14).  The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 13-14).  Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]).  "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207).  Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).  A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014]; C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 836 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365).

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.  Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs.  To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential.  They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

1. Student's Needs

A review of the information available in the hearing record concerning the student's needs and then-current functioning will provide the context needed to assess whether the unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate for the student.

At the time of the impartial hearing, the district had last convened a CSE for the student on June 27, 2023.  According to the June 2023 IESP, the student was "behind in all areas of academics" (Dist. Exs. 2 at p. 1; 3 at p. 1).  In reading, the student was described as delayed (Dist. Ex. 2 at p. 1).  The IESP noted that on a Fountas and Pinnell assessment, the student was performing on "level P" and could decode 69 words per minute with 96 percent accuracy (id.).  Reportedly, the student's performance represented "a significant delay of one grade below level" (id.).  The student was able to read CVC words and words with vowel teams, however she demonstrated "difficulty with reading multi[-]syllabic words and reading fluently" (id.).  In addition, the student was described as guessing or skipping words which affected her understanding of read text (Dist. Exs. 2 at p. 1; 3 at p. 2).  The June 2023 IESP stated that the student did not read with "sufficient accuracy since she [wa]s not monitoring for meaning" and that she read "very choppily" and did not stop to check for understanding of the text (Dist. Exs. 2 at p. 1; 3 at p. 3).

In terms of her social development, the June 2023 IESP indicated that the student was "sweet" and "eager to please" but that her impulsivity and poor social/emotional skills "significantly" affected her behavior (Dist. Exs. 2 at p. 1; 3 at p. 5).  The June 2023 IESP stated that it was difficult for the student to control herself, especially when frustrated or overwhelmed (Dist. Ex. 2 at p. 2).  The IESP also described the student as having difficulty socializing in an appropriate manner (id.).

In terms of physical development, the June 2023 IESP stated the student was "impulsive" and sometimes ate things that she was not supposed to eat (Dist. Ex. 2 at p. 2).  The IESP noted the student was able to engage in "all age appropriate activities" (id.).

The June 2023 IESP included a variety of supports to address the student's management needs such as preferential seating, a multisensory learning environment, manipulatives, frequent check-ins, directions broken down and repeated, refocusing and redirection, positive reinforcement, positive peer models, explicit instruction, modeling, prompts, a highly structured environment with a set schedule and routine, breaks, and a visual schedule (Dist. Ex. 2 at pp. 2-3).  According to the June 2023 IESP, the student required special education and related services to address her delays in "cognitive skills, academics, communication, and socialization" (id. at p. 3).  The hearing record shows that during the 2023-24 school year the student received 10 hours per week of "special education support" from Yes I Can, speech-language therapy from SpeechLearn and was also entitled to receive paraprofessional services, OT, and counseling services through pendency (Parent Exs. B at p. 7; E at p. 5; H).

As described in a June 2024 SETSS progress report, the student was "outgoing" and "well-behaved" (Parent Ex. E at p. 1).  The progress report indicated that the student had difficulty with her ability to "retain information" as well as her ability to "acquire and master a skill" without "specialized instruction" (id.).  The June 2024 SETSS progress report stated that the student demonstrated anxiety and "fears about specific experiences," "sensory needs," and regression during short breaks (id. at pp. 1, 6).  The progress report also noted that the student had difficulty with her ability to read at grade level independently, make inferences, and perform "multi[-]step math word problems," and that she demonstrated task refusal when she became "dysregulated or overwhelmed" (id.at p. 1).

The June 2024 SETSS progress report indicated that the student "struggle[d]" to "read[] multi[-]syllabic words," and then later clarified that the student had difficulty "with words" that "contain[ed] more than three syllables" (Parent Ex. E at p. 2).  According to the June 2024 SETSS progress report, "[t]he student ha[d] learned to read with sufficient accuracy" but needed prompting to syllabicate a word and use context clues to attempt to decode (id.).  In terms of reading comprehension, the progress report indicated the student had learned to comprehend books with guidance but "continue[d] to struggle with drawing conclusions and responding to higher order thinking questions" (id. at p. 3).  In math, the June 2024 SETSS progress report indicated that the student "ha[d] learned to solve one[-] and two[-]step word problems" and "learned place value up to one hundred thousand" (id. at p. 4).  The provider included in her June 2024 SETSS progress report that the student had difficulty with word problems that contained "multiple step[s]" and with the "place value of decimals" (id.).

In terms of the student's social goals, the June 2024 SETSS progress report reflected that the student "ha[d] learned [] the basics of relating to peers appropriately" and how to "identify emotions and how they [were] linked to behavior," but that the student had difficulty with maintaining relationships and regulating her emotions (Parent Ex. E at p. 4).  The June 2024 SETSS progress report indicated that the student had difficulty "with perspective[-]taking skills," "persevering when work seem[ed] difficult[,] and [was] extremely impulsive" (id.).

Turning to the student's speech and language needs, a June 2024 SpeechLearn progress report indicated that the student was "an outgoing and friendly" student with "multiple speech and language deficits" (Parent Ex. H at p. 1).  The June 2024 speech-language therapy progress report indicated that the student demonstrated delays in her receptive and expressive language, pragmatic language, phonological and auditory processing, and reading skills, "as well as attention and executive function weaknesses" (id.).  With regard to receptive and expressive language, the speech-language pathologist indicated that although the student had made progress in her ability to memorize and recall new words, she continued to require support in using these skills independently and spontaneously (id.).  The speech-language pathologist reported that while the student demonstrated improved comprehension of basic facts, she exhibited difficulty with "higher level skills" such as predicting, inferencing, and reasoning; did not easily connect text to self; and comprehended texts on a superficial level but had trouble with in-depth analysis and characterization" (id.).  According to the speech-language pathologist, the student was able to write a cohesive paragraph that included a topic sentence, four supporting details, and sub-details (id.).  The speech-language pathologist noted the student demonstrated difficulty following multi-step directions (id.).

Turning to the student's phonological and auditory processing skills, the speech-language pathologist reported the student had shown improvement in her ability to identify and read initial clusters/letter sounds in words and could read simple words and sentences (Parent Ex. H at p. 1).  However, when reading longer or more complex words the student was often impulsive and inaccurate (id.).  The therapist reported that the student frequently dropped sounds in her reading and written work and had difficulty with the manipulation of sounds in words (id.).  In terms of social pragmatic skills, the speech-language pathologist noted the student had learned to initiate and terminate conversations in an appropriate manner but due to impulsivity had difficulty applying the skills in "real time" (id.).  According to the speech-language pathologist, the student presented with a reduced understanding of others' perspectives, as well as how her behavior was perceived by others (id.).  In addition, the therapist noted the student had learned to play age-appropriate games with peers but became agitated when she lost or when the games lasted longer than expected (id.).

Additionally, the June 2024 speech-language therapy progress report indicated that the student was impulsive and "often unwilling to perform when [she] encounter[ed] difficulty" (Parent Ex. H at p. 2).  According to the speech-language pathologist's June 2024 progress report, the student continued to "struggle[] with initiation and termination, problem[-]solving, planning, and following sequential steps," and demonstrated "poor frustration tolerance" as well as "poor self[-] control" (id.).

The student was reportedly in fifth grade for both the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years (Parent Exs. E at p. 1; T at p. 1).  It is therefore assumed that the student repeated fifth grade for the 2024-25 school year, however, this fact was not confirmed by any additional evidence in the hearing record.

2. Services from Yes I Can

As detailed above, the IHO found the parents failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the unilaterally-obtained SETSS, paraprofessional services, speech-language therapy, counseling, and OT services were appropriate for the student, specifically noting the lack of progress reports and evidence of services provided.  With regard to the SETSS and paraprofessional services, the hearing record includes a July 2024 plan of remediation developed by Yes I Can, as well as testimony by the Yes I Can educational supervisor and Yes I Can educational director (Parent Exs. F, Q, S).  The educational supervisor's testimony was provided via a July 29, 2024 affidavit and telephonically at the August 7, 2024 impartial hearing (Tr. pp. 15-19, Parent Ex. Q). The educational director's testimony was provided via a February 19, 2025 affidavit (Parent Ex. S).

The educational supervisor of Yes I Can testified that the agency provided the student with individual SETSS and a paraprofessional for the 2024-25 school year, and that there were two individuals that provided the SETSS and one individual who served as the student's paraprofessional (Tr. pp. 16-17; Parent Ex. Q ¶¶ 12-13, 15-17).[10]  According to the educational supervisor's July 2024 affidavit, the two SETSS providers were "certified by NYS to teach students with disabilities," and "[were] trained and experienced in teaching literacy and comprehension to school[-]aged children and adolescents" (Parent Ex. Q ¶ 15).  The hearing record included the teaching certification record for only one of the student's SETSS's providers (Parent Exs. K; Q ¶ 15).[11]  The submitted certification record indicated that the provider had an initial teaching certificate for students with disabilities grades 1-6 that expired August 31, 2025, a "[d]isapproved" certificate for a bilingual education extension, and expired certifications for early childhood education and students with disabilities birth to grade 2 (id.).

The educational supervisor and educational director estimated in their affidavits that the student would receive services from Yes I Can of 10 hours of SETSS per week and 40 hours of paraprofessional services per week over 46 weeks (Parent Exs. Q ¶¶ 14, 18; S ¶ 14).[12]  In her affidavit and during the impartial hearing, the educational supervisor testified that the student's services were provided "in her mainstream school," as "push-in" services or "in a separate location" (Tr. p. 18; Parent Ex. Q ¶¶ 22, 26; see also Parent Ex. S ¶ 28).  However, the hearing record was silent regarding the student's mainstream program (see generally Tr. pp. 1-28; Parent Exs. A-V; Dist. Exs. 1-4).

The "plan of remediation" was developed by Yes I Can in July 2024 (see Parent Ex. F).  The educational supervisor at Yes I Can testified, through her July 2024 direct affidavit testimony, that the plan of remediation "[wa]s an accurate representation of what the providers ha[d] been working on with [the student], including goals, over the course of the 2024-[]25 school year" (Parent Ex. Q ¶ 25).  The plan indicated that the providers had been using leveled readers, metacognition, graphic/semantic organizers, Making Math Real graphic organizers, Making Math Real manipulatives, and the "All About Spelling" curriculum to address the student's reading, comprehension, math, social, and language needs (Parent Ex. F at pp. 1-4).  In comparing the goals included in the June 2024 SETSS progress report and the goals included in the "plan of remediation" dated July 2024, the July 2024 document included one new literacy goal, one new math goal, and one new social goal (compare Parent Ex. E, with Parent Ex. F).  According to the educational supervisor's affidavit, the student's "[g]oals were developed" using "eval[uations]" and through a "review[] [of] prior reports" and were reviewed on a quarterly basis (Parent Ex. Q ¶ 23).

The educational supervisor testified via affidavit that the student's sessions "include[d] a great deal of specialized instruction" and further offered that "the providers prepare[d] for sessions, create[d] goals, wr[ote] progress reports, and m[et] with teachers and parents" (id. ¶¶ 20, 26).

The educational supervisor of Yes I Can included in her affidavit that the student was "easily distractable and prone to regression" (Parent Ex. Q ¶ 29).  According to the educational director's affidavit, the student "struggle[d] with her ability to comprehend learning, emotional regulation, and executive functioning skills," and she sometimes "ha[d] disturbing thoughts that [] cause[d] extreme behaviors" that "present[ed] as a danger to herself and others" (Parent Ex. S ¶ 17).  The educational director also testified via affidavit that because of the student's Celiac disease she had an "unhealthy relationship with food" that required supervision throughout the school day to monitor the student's food intake and ensure her safety (id. ¶ 18).

According to the educational director's February 2025 affidavit, the student's paraprofessional "join[ed]" her "in all academic and social activities throughout the school day" which "enable[d] [the student] to participate in the mainstream routine so that she c[ould] benefit from her least restrictive environment" (Parent Ex. S ¶ 19).  The educational director testified that the paraprofessional's work was supervised by an educational supervisor who was a certified special education teacher and that the paraprofessional had previously worked as a general studies classroom teacher (id. ¶¶ 23-25).

The educational director referenced in her February 2025 affidavit that the student had a behavior plan, and that her "behaviors [were] targeted" through the use of "a token economy system" (Parent Ex. S ¶¶ 20-22, 27).[13]  The Yes I Can educational director included in her affidavit that the student's paraprofessional addressed the student's "expressive language" and "understanding of healthy eating" via "visual support," "a token economy," and "social stories" (id. ¶¶ 20-21).  The educational director further testified that the student's paraprofessional used ABA principles to support the student's behavior management and socialization (id. ¶ 21).

The Yes I Can educational supervisor testified in her July 2024 affidavit that the student demonstrated "signs of progress with her SETSS and [paraprofessional]" (Parent Ex. Q ¶ 28).  The Yes I Can educational director testified in her February 2025 affidavit that the student demonstrated signs of progress including the ability to "navigate the mainstream classroom independently and express her frustration" as well as "explor[e] new healthy food choices" (Parent Ex. S ¶ 29).  The hearing record does not include session notes or progress reports from either of the student's SETSS providers for the 2024-25 school year which, according to the educational supervisor, the providers kept (Parent Ex. Q ¶ Q 3).

3. Services from SpeechLearn

Turning to the parent's unilaterally-obtained speech-language services, the hearing record includes a July 31, 2024 affidavit from the student's SpeechLearn speech-language pathologist and testimony from the owner of SpeechLearn, primarily related to the rate charged for therapy services (Tr. pp. 20-23; Parent Exs, F; P).  In her July 2024 affidavit, the student's speech-language pathologist indicated that the student was "mandated to receive" two 60-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy in Yiddish, although she did not confirm the frequency of services she provided to the student (Parent Ex. O ¶ 7).  During the impartial hearing, the owner of SpeechLearn, who was not the student's treating clinician, testified that the student's therapy was provided "[i]n the clinic" (Tr. pp. 20-21, 22-23).

The speech-language pathologist testified in her July 2024 affidavit that the student's areas of need included memory skills, reading comprehension, auditory processing, language processing, and executive functioning (Parent Ex. O ¶ 10).  According to the speech-language pathologist's July 2024 affidavit, she used a variety of strategies to address the student's needs including "visualization, verbal rehearsal, repetition, visual cues, [] chunking," "Think Aloud strategies," "Phenome [sic] Sequencing," "Social Thinking concepts," and "pre-planning concepts" (id.).

In her affidavit, the speech-language pathologist testified that the student's "progress [was] measured through informal assessments and consistent meetings with school personnel" (Parent Ex. O ¶ 9).

She reported that the student had "shown signs of progress" as of July 2024 (Parent Ex. O ¶ 11).  However, despite the speech-language pathologist report that she measured the student's progress through informal assessments and consistent meetings with school personnel, the hearing record is silent in terms of the student's progress for the remainder of the 2024-25 school year (see generally Tr. pp. 1-28; Parent Exs. A-V; Dist. Exs. 1-4).

4. Occupational Therapy

Next, the hearing record includes a July 28, 2024 OT progress report and a July 31, 2024 affidavit from the student's occupational therapist that describe the student's motor and sensory needs as well as the focus of the student's OT sessions (Parent Exs. N, G).  The occupational therapist testified in her affidavit that she began providing the student with therapy during the 2020-21 school year and at the time of her July 2024 affidavit was providing the student with three 30-minute sessions per week of individual OT at her place "of business" (Parent Ex. N ¶¶ 5, 7-8; see Parent Ex. G at p. 1).

  The July 2024 OT progress report indicated that the student exhibited "significant delays" with both sensory processing and self-regulation, as well as "severe difficulties" with transitions, when things did not go her way, and with tasks she believed were too difficult (id.).  Additionally, the July 2024 OT progress report indicated that the student engaged in "emotional outbursts," "tantrums," "physical[] aggressi[on]," or "unsafe behaviors," as well as that the student sometimes "g[o]t quiet and refuse[d] to talk" (id.).

In her affidavit, the occupational therapist reiterated that the student demonstrated "significant sensory processing deficits," as well as "difficulties" with self-regulation," and added that the student exhibited deficits in "fine motor, graphomotor, and visual perceptual skills" (Parent Ex. N ¶ 8).  Further, consistent with the progress report the occupational therapist testified that the student had difficulty with attention skills and that she "engage[d] in emotional outbursts," was "physically aggressive, and struggle[d] with transitions" (id.).

In her July 2024 affidavit, the occupational therapist testified that she used a variety of strategies to address the student's needs "including sensory-based therapeutic exercises, calming exercises like yoga and breathing strategies, and sensory tools and equipment" (Parent Ex. N ¶ 12).  Additionally, the occupational therapist stated that the student's progress was measured monthly based on the student's performance and her observations of the student (id. ¶ 13).

According to the occupational therapist's affidavit, she conducted the student's sessions at her "private practice," because providing the services at school or at a therapy center/sensory gym would be overstimulating for the student (Parent Ex. N ¶¶ 7, 9).  Further, the occupational therapist testified that the student "require[d] a quiet, calm, and non-distracting environment for OT services . . . to help calm her overly dysregulated nervous system" (id. ¶ 7).

To develop the student's goals, the occupational therapist testified that she conducted "unofficial assessments," and that she last formally assessed the student using "the Sensory Profile" on July 26, 2024 (Parent Ex. N ¶ 10).  In her affidavit, the occupational therapist testified that she "collaborat[ed] with [the student's] parents, teachers, and her other therapists/providers[] by providing guidance, tips, tools, and techniques to help carry over the skills taught during the OT sessions" (id. ¶ 7).

The July 2024 OT progress report indicated that the student demonstrated improvement in her sensory processing skills, but that the progress "fluctuate[d]" (Parent Ex. G at p. 1).  For example, the July 2024 OT progress report stated that the student was sometimes able to tolerate loud noises or follow directions, but not at other times (id.).  The July 2024 OT progress report indicated that the student demonstrated progress with her safety awareness, sensory processing skills, fine motor skills, and graphomotor skills (id. at pp. 1-2).  However, the July 2024 OT progress report also indicated that the student at times used "hurtful statements," became "physically aggressive," "engage[d] in unsafe behaviors," and was "impulsive" (id. at p. 1).  Although the occupational therapist reported that she measured the student's progress monthly, the hearing record does not include any OT attendance records, session notes, or progress reports subsequent to July 2024.

5. Counseling Services

In terms of counseling, the hearing record includes a February 2025 counseling report, invoices for counseling services provided between September 2024 and January 2025, and proof of payment for counseling services (Parent Exs T; U; V).  The February 2025 progress report indicated that the student received two 30-minute sessions of counseling per week (Parent Ex. T at p. 1).  However, the invoices included in the hearing record showed that between September 2024 and January 2025, the licensed mental health counselor (counselor) provided 60-minute sessions, either two or three times per month (see Parent Ex. U).[14]  The hearing record was silent as to where the student's counseling services were provided (see generally Parent Exs. T-U).

The February 2025 counseling progress report described the student as "sweet" and indicated that the sessions addressed her "social[/]emotional, behavioral, socialization skills, transitioning skills, attention, and communication delays" (Parent Ex. T at p. 1).  According to the February 2025 counseling progress report, the student demonstrated anxiety, "overth[ought]" things, had difficulty "accurately interpret[ing] situations," and "ha[d] poor frustration tolerance" (id.).

In her February 2025 counseling report, the counselor noted that the student "bec[ame] uncomfortable with the worry sensation" which led to "extreme thoughts," and that "[h]er anxious feelings [were] high in frequency, intensity, and duration [and] that it overwhelm[ed] her" (Parent Ex. T at p. 1).  In addition, the February 2025 counseling progress report indicated that the student had difficulty with the "accurate[] interpret[ation] [of] situations" and that "many times she bec[ame] so fearful she [] just fr[oze]" (id.).

According to the February 2025 counseling progress report, the counselor addressed the student's needs via "bilateral stimulation, mantras, imagery, and the modality of E[ye] M[ovement] D[esensitization and] R[eprocessing] and sensory motor" (Parent Ex. T at p. 1).  The February 2025 counseling progress report also indicated that the student was "familiar[ized] with [her] flight and fight-freeze response[s] by exploring th[ose] sensations" to address her anxiety (id. at p. 2).

The February 2025 counseling progress report indicated that the student had made "[s]ome progress . . . both in school and at home" but the hearing record did not include specifics related to progress from the student's counselor (Parent Exs. O ¶ 11; T at p. 2).

Furthermore, the parent in her affidavit, offered that the student made progress over the past year with the support of her providers (Parent Ex. M ¶ 14).  The parent, in an unsigned, undated affidavit indicated that the student's progress included improvement with "self[-]regulation," "her ability to shift tasks," and her ability to "focus" (id.).[15]  The parent also included in her affidavit that the student was "less irritable," "better able to identify and separate out her feelings," and showed improvement with her reading and math skills (id.).  In addition, the parent reported that the student was better able to manipulate sounds, put words together and express herself and the student was getting better at expressing herself in writing(id.).  The parent noted that the student's reading and math skills had also improved (id.).

Overall, while the evidence in the hearing record was useful for establishing the student's needs and identifying what the contours of an appropriate program would look like for the student for the 2024-25 school year; it does not follow that such evidence was sufficient to establish that the parents' unilaterally-obtained services for the 2024-25 school year were appropriate   Upon remand the parties were invited to submit additional evidence which the parents did; however, as described above, the submitted evidence was limited and other than the February 2025 counseling report and affidavit testimony regarding the paraprofessionals, the parents failed to offer information about the other services unilaterally obtained for the student after July 2024 (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-459; see February 24-25, 2025 email correspondence between the IHO and the parties; see also Parent Exs. S-V).  Accordingly, the parents' arguments on appeal that the IHO relied too "heavily on the lack of progress reports, session logs and session notes" in determining the appropriateness of the unilaterally-obtained services for the 2024-25 school year is without merit (see Req. for Rev. ¶¶ 6-8, 20, 22).

Rather than rely largely on evidence from the prior school year, such as the June 2024 progress reports, and reports and documentation created during the summer portion of the 2024-25 extended school year, the parents must also come forward with evidence that describes the services and the delivery thereof for the remainder of the school year in question; here, the hearing record lacks substantive information about any SETSS, speech-language or OT services the student received after July 2024, other than general statements concerning the provision of the services as testified to by the educational director, and otherwise does not explain how the services obtained by the parent addressed the student's needs for the ten-month portion of the school year (see L.K. v. Ne. Sch. Dist., 932 F. Supp. 2d 467, 491 [S.D.N.Y. 2013] [in reviewing the appropriateness of a unilateral placement, courts prefer objective evidence over anecdotal evidence]; L.Q. v. Ne. Sch. Dist., 932 F. Supp. 2d 467, 490 [S.D.N.Y. 2013] [rejecting parents' argument that counseling services met student's social/emotional needs where "[t]here was no evidence . . . presented to establish [the counselor's] qualifications, the focus of her therapy, or the type of services provided" and, further, where "[the counselor] did not testify at the hearing and no records were introduced as to the nature of her services or how those services related to [the student's] unique needs"]; R.S. v. Lakeland Cent. Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 1198458, at *5 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011] [rejecting the parents' argument that speech-language therapy services met student's needs where parents "did not offer any evidence as to the qualifications of the provider of the therapy, the focus of the therapy, or when and how much therapy was provided"], aff'd sub nom, 471 Fed. App'x 77 [2d Cir. June 18, 2012]).

Although the progress reports, as described above, provided some evidence, including annual goals for the 2024-25 school year, the hearing record lacked evidence describing how, under the totality of the circumstances, the parents' unilaterally-obtained services addressed the student's identified areas of weakness with specially designed instruction.  In addition, as noted by the IHO, the affidavits of the providers and the progress reports included no information regarding the curriculum at the student's nonpublic school or the instruction the student received from her nonpublic school outside of the unilaterally-obtained services.  Without evidence of how the unilaterally-obtained services supported the student in the general education classroom, it is not possible to ascertain whether the student received special education support in the classroom to enable her to access the general education curriculum or whether the private services delivered to her supported her classroom functioning.  Given that, by definition, specially designed instruction is the adaptation of instruction to allow a student to access a general education curriculum so that the student can meet the educational standards that apply to all students, the evidence in the hearing record is, overall, insufficient to demonstrate that the student's program was appropriate to meet her needs (8 NYCRR 200.1[vv]; see 34 CFR 300.39[b][3]).  As a result, the parents have failed to meet their burden of proving that the services they obtained privately were appropriate for the student under the Burlington/Carter standard.

Based upon the foregoing, the parents have not alleged a sufficient basis to modify the IHO's well-reasoned and well-supported decision dismissing the parents' due process complaint notice with prejudice.

VII. Conclusion

Having concluded that there is insufficient basis to overturn the IHO's determination that the parents failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of the unilaterally obtained services provided to the student during the 2024-25 school year, the necessary inquiry is at an end and there is no need to reach the issue of whether equitable considerations support an award of district funding for the costs of the unilaterally obtained services (see M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2d Cir. 2000]).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.