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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which she asserts denied her requested relief.  The appeal must be dismissed.

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]).  Similarly, when a preschool student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an IEP, which is delegated to a local Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, and a chairperson that falls within statutory criteria (Educ. Law § 4410; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.1[mm], 200.3, 200.4[d][2], 200.16; see also 34 CFR 300.804).  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

As an initial matter, I note that no hearing record was filed with the Office of State Review in this matter.  On June 20, 2025, the Office of State Review received from the parent a notice of intention to seek review dated June 1, 2025, a case information statement dated June 1, 2025, a notice of request for review dated June 16, 2025, a request for review dated and verified June 16, 2025, and an affidavit of service for the "notice of request for review and supporting papers" sworn to on June 18, 2025.  The parent also filed a document to be considered as additional evidence on appeal consisting of an engagement retainer for private speech-language therapy dated February 25, 2025.  The parent did not file an affidavit of service with the Office of State Review to show that the notice of intention to seek review was served on the district.  The district did not file the hearing record, an answer, or seek an extension of time to submit an answer in this matter and there is otherwise no indication that the district was served with any documents.  Accordingly, the information in this proceeding consists solely of the aforementioned documents.

According to the parent, the student was three turning four years old during the 2024-25 school year and was attending a preschool program (see Req. for Rev.).  A CPSE convened on December 19, 2024 and determined that the student's speech was "moderately to severely delayed," warranting the development of an IEP for the student with a recommendation of three 30-minute sessions per week of speech-language therapy (Req. for Rev. ¶ 5).  According to the parent, the district notified her that there was no speech-language therapist available to attend the student's preschool classroom but that an evening or weekend academy would be available (id. ¶ 6).  The parent indicates that the evening academy did not fit within her schedule and the locations offered were not near their home or the student's preschool, noting the sights were 30 to 40 minutes from their home (id. ¶¶ 7, 9). The parent further indicates that she entered into a contract with a private speech-language therapist to provide speech-language therapy services to the student at a rate of $120 per 30-minute session (see Req. for Rev. ¶¶ 11-13).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

According to the parent, the parent and district proceeded to a hearing before an IHO, who issued a decision on May 7, 2025.  The parent states that she disagrees with the IHO that the record was devoid of the private speech-language therapist's credentials and disagreed that the record was devoid of the private speech-language therapist's training and experience.  The parent also disagrees with the IHO's finding that the record was devoid of any evidence of the student's progress during private speech-language therapy.  In summary, the parent disagrees with the IHO's ultimate finding that she did not meet her burden of proving that the private speech-language therapist offered services that were specially designed to meet the student's needs.

Further, the parent alleges that equitable considerations favor her request for reimbursement.  The parent argues that the IHO's award of compensatory education services is not adequate and instead "creates a circular problem to the prejudice of [the student]" (Req. for Rev. ¶ 25).  As relief, the parent requests the district reimburse the parent for the student's private speech-language therapy sessions and for the district to "subsidize the cost" of a private speech-language therapist in accordance with the recommended speech-language therapy in the December 19, 2024 IEP, including the compensatory sessions ordered by the IHO, or until the district finds an adequate speech-language therapy provider.

As noted above, the district has not submitted an answer to the request for review or otherwise appeared in this matter.

V. Discussion

As further described below, I am constrained to dismiss the parent's appeal because there is no evidence that the appeal was properly initiated against the district in compliance with State regulations.[1] 

An appeal from an IHO's decision to an SRO—whether the appeal is by a district or a parent—must be initiated by timely personal service of a verified request for review and other supporting documents, if any, upon respondent (8 NYCRR 279.4[b], [c]).  Personal service on a school district is made "by delivering a copy thereof to the district clerk, to a trustee or member of the board of education of such school district, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person who has been designated by the board of education to accept service" (8 NYCRR 279.4[b]).  The petitioner must personally serve the opposing party with the notice of intention to seek review no later than 25 days after the date of the IHO's decision and with the request for review no later than 40 days after the date of the IHO's decision (8 NYCRR 279.2[b]).  Thereafter, "the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service [must be filed] with the Office of State Review . . . within two days after service of the request for review is complete" (8 NYCRR 279.4[e] [emphasis added]).

Generally, the failure to comply with the practice requirements of Part 279 of the State regulations, including the failure to properly serve an initiating pleading in a timely manner, may result in the rejection of the submitted documents or the dismissal of a request for review by an SRO (8 NYCRR 279.8[a]; 279.13; see B.C. v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 971 F. Supp. 2d 356, 365-66 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2013] [upholding an SRO's dismissal of a parent's appeal where, among other procedural deficiencies, the amended petition was not personally served upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-015 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate proper personal service of the petition upon the district where the parent served a district employee not authorized to accept service]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-117 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate proper personal service in a timely manner where the parent served a CSE chairperson and, thereafter, served the superintendent but not until after the time permitted by State regulation expired]; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-042 [dismissing parent's appeal for failure to properly effectuate service of the petition in a timely manner where the parent served the district's counsel by overnight mail]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-013 [dismissing parent's appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of petition upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-012 [dismissing parents' appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of petition upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-099 [dismissing parents' appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of the petition upon the district]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 05-082 [dismissing a district's appeal for failure to personally serve the petition upon the parent where the district served the parent's former counsel by overnight mail]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 05-060 [dismissing a district's appeal for failing to timely file a hearing record on appeal]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-045 [dismissing a parent's appeal for, among other reasons, failure to effectuate proper personal service where the parent served a school psychologist]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 01-048 [dismissing a district's appeal for failure to personally serve the petition upon the parent where the district served the parent by facsimile]).

As identified above, the parent only filed an affidavit of service relating to the notice of request for review and supporting papers.  There is no affidavit of service for the notice of intention to seek review and there is no indication that the district received the notice of intention to seek review.[2]  However, regardless of what occurred with the notice of intention to seek review, the affidavit of service of the notice of request for review does not support finding that the district was properly served with the request for review in accordance with State regulation.

According to the affidavit of service the parent served the notice of request for review and supporting papers with a "District 13 Administrator" (Aff. of Service).  The parent's proof of service fails to show that she personally served the district with the request for review in the manner required by State regulation, as she did not indicate that personal service was made upon the district clerk, a trustee, the superintendent, or a person designated by the board of education to accept service (see 8 NYCRR 279.4[b]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 20-020; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-077; see also Appeal of Villanueva, 49 Ed. Dep't Rep. 54, Decision No. 15,956 [personal service under similar regulatory provisions on unidentified receptionist found improper]; Appeal of Baker, 47 Ed. Dep't Rep. 280, Decision No. 15,696 [service on the executive secretary to the superintendent found under similar regulatory provisions improper]).  The district administrator is not among the individuals specified in State regulation upon whom service may be made and there is no indication that the district designated the individual served to accept service on the district's behalf (8 NYCRR 279.4[b]).

While State regulations do not preclude a school district and a parent from agreeing to "waive" personal service of the request for review and it is generally permitted for parties to agree to service by an alternate delivery method, there is no indication in this instance that the district agreed to accept service by delivery of the request for review and supporting documents to the individual identified in the parent's June 2025 affidavit of service as the district has not appeared in this matter.  Under these circumstances, given the deficiencies in compliance with Part 279 and the defect in service on the district, the appeal must be dismissed.

VI. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed for failure to properly initiate the appeal.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.