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 that respondent (the district) prospectively place the student at a nonpublic school and fund tuition and transportation expenses, as well as provide compensatory education services for the 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 school years.  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]).  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 parties' familiarity with this matter is presumed and given the disposition of this matter on procedural grounds, a detailed recitation of the student's educational history is not necessary. Briefly, the student had been found eligible for special education as a student with a learning disability during the 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 school years (see Dist. Exs. 1; 2; 10; 11).  For the school years at issue, the CSE convened on November 9, 2021, November 18, 2022, November 9, 2023, and October 29, 2024 to develop IEPs that recommended the student attend a 12:1+1 special class and related services consisting of counseling, speech-language therapy, and occupational therapy (OT) as well as a paraprofessional for behavioral support (id.).[1]  The student attended a district public school during the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years in a 12:1+1 special class (Dist. Ex. 18 ¶ 4).

In a due process complaint notice dated May 28, 2025, the parent alleged that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 school years (Parent Ex. J at p. 3).  The parent alleged several "procedural violations" including that the district's three-year reevaluation was "insufficient in scope" and included "boilerplate goals" (id. at p. 5).  The parent alleged that the district's recommended 12:1+1 special class placement "[had] proven ineffective" over the three-year timeframe and the district failed to perform a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and develop or implement a behavioral intervention plan (BIP).  The parent sought a finding that the district denied the student a FAPE for all three school years and requested that the IHO award and require the district to fund a prospective placement in a "state approved non-public school", independent educational evaluations (IEEs), a bank of compensatory education services, and the development and implementation of a BIP (id. at pp. 7-9).

The parties attended status conferences on June 7 and June 16, 2025 (Tr. pp. 1-28), after which an impartial hearing was held before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) beginning on July 21, 2025 and concluding on July 24, 2025 (Tr. pp. 29-114).  In a decision dated August 10, 2025, after a recitation of the procedural history, the IHO noted the district made a prehearing motion to dismiss claims related to the November 2021 IEP and the November 2022 IEP on the grounds that they were barred by the two-year statute of limitations (IHO Decision p. 5).[2]  In summarizing the district's motion, the IHO found the district's argument that the accrual dates for each IEP were two years after their implementation date was unpersuasive (id.).  Nevertheless, the IHO determined that the parent's claims with regard to the 2022-23 school year were time-barred as they were not brought before November 18, 2024, the last date the parent could bring a timely claim related to the IEPs developed for that school year according to the IHO’s analysis of the relevant claim accrual dates (id. at pp. 19-20).  The IHO held further that none of the exceptions for tolling the statute of limitations applied (id. at p. 20).

With regard to the 2023-24 school year, the IHO reiterated her finding that the parent's claims with regard to the November 2022 IEP, which remained in effect at the start of the 2023-24 school year, were time barred; however, the November 2023 IEP was operative during the 2023-24 school year so the parent's claims related to the November 2023 IEP were timely (IHO Decision at pp. 20-21).  The IHO held that the district failed to meet its burden to demonstrate it provided a FAPE to the student during the 2023-24 school year due to the student's repeated behavior issues, continued limitations with regard to English language arts (ELA) and math, and its failure to provide a BIP (id. at p. 21).

Likewise, the IHO determined the district failed to meet its burden for the 2024-25 school year (IHO Decision at p. 21).  The IHO held that the district did not demonstrate it provided a FAPE noting that the October 2024 IEP indicated the student continued to perform below grade level and struggled with focus and completing assignments (id.).  According to the IHO, the district failed to demonstrate how the recommended 12:1+1 special class placement would meet the student's academic and behavioral needs (id.).  The IHO concluded that the student required additional evaluations and directed the district to fund a psychoeducational evaluation, IEEs in the areas of speech-language, OT, assistive technology, and an FBA (id. at p. 24).  The IHO denied the parent's request for compensatory education; however, directed the district to provide any missed sessions of speech-language therapy during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, and missed counseling sessions for the 2023-24 school year (id.).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent appeals, alleging that the IHO erred in dismissing the parent's claims related to the 2022-23 school year as time-barred.  The parent also argues that the IHO erred in declining to award compensatory education for the denial of a FAPE and prospectively placing the student in a nonpublic school.

In an answer, the district argues that the instant matter should be dismissed due to the parent's failure to conform with practice regulations as the request for review as submitted was not properly signed or verified.  Alternatively, the district argues that the IHO's holding that the parent's claims with regard to the November 2021 and 2022 IEPs are time-barred should be affirmed along with the denial of compensatory education and prospective placement at a nonpublic school.

V.  Discussion

As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether the parent's appeal should be dismissed for failing to comply with practice regulations.  The district argues the parent's pleading does not conform with the signature requirement of Part 279 of the State regulations and further that the request for review is not properly verified.

On August 25, 2025, the parent's lay advocate filed the following documents with the Office of State Review: a notice of intention to seek review (dated August 11, 2024)[3] and an affidavit of service (sworn to on August 12, 2025), a notice of request for review (dated August 11, 2025), a request for review (dated August 13, 2025), a memorandum of law (dated August 13, 2025), an affidavit of verification (subscribed and sworn to on August 24, 2025), and a series of emails (dated August 24, 2025) indicating the aforementioned documents were emailed to a representative for the district.

The request for review was executed by the parent's lay advocate as was the affidavit of verification "on behalf of [the parent]".  State regulation provides that "[a]ll pleadings and papers submitted to a State Review Officer in connection with an appeal must be endorsed with the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the party submitting the same or, if a party is represented by counsel, with the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the party's attorney" (8 NYCRR 279.7[a]).  The lay advocate, in the role of "assisting" the parent, should direct the parent to put her own name and current information on pleadings herself.  Further, State regulation requires that "[a]ll pleadings shall be signed by an attorney, or by a party if the party is not represented by an attorney" (8 NYCRR 279.8[a][4]).  Here, as the parent is not represented by an attorney and is, instead, being assisted by a lay advocate, the parent was required to sign the request for review (id.).  The parent's failure to sign the request for review is in violation of the practice requirements of Part 279 of State regulations.

While I acknowledge the request for review is noncompliant with regulation for failing to include the parent's signature, the more pressing issue before me is that the submitted "Affidavit of Verification" included with the parent's request for review does not appear to be signed by either of the student's parents.  The practice regulations require verification of all pleadings submitted to an SRO in connection with an appeal (see 8 NYCRR 279.7[b]).  When the appeal is taken by the student's parent or parents, "[t]he request for review shall be verified by the oath of at least one" such petitioner (see id.).  Verification of a document entails a sworn statement that the affiant knows the contents of the document and knows the contents of the document to be true; or, with respect to allegations made "upon information and belief," the affiant believes the allegations to be true (see 8 NYCRR 279.7[b][1]).  The submitted affidavit of verification included with the parent's request for review appears to be signed by the parent's advocate and is therefore also improper pursuant to State regulation.

In general, the failure to comply with the practice requirements of Part 279 of the State regulations 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]; see T.W. v. Spencerport Cent. Sch. Dist., 891 F. Supp. 2d 438, 440-41 [W.D.N.Y. 2012] [upholding dismissal of a petition for review that was untimely and exceeded page limitations]).  "[J]udgments rendered solely on the basis of easily corrected procedural errors or 'mere technicalities,' are generally disfavored" (J.E. v. Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 4934535, at *4-*6 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2015], quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 [1962]).  However, while a singular failure to comply with the practice requirements of Part 279 may not warrant an SRO exercising his or her discretion to dismiss a request for review or reject a memorandum of law (see 8 NYCRR 279.8[a]; 279.13; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-040), an SRO may be more inclined to do so where more than one defect exists in the pleading documents or if a particular attorney or lay advocate for the party has demonstrated repeated failures to comply with the practice requirements (Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 19-060; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 19-058; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 18-110; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 17-079; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 17-015; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-040).

Accordingly, in conformity with the concerns identified in the above decisions and given the number and type of procedural deficiencies present in the initiation of this particular appeal, as well as the district's arguments in its answer that the procedural defects warrant dismissal, I decline to exercise my discretion to consider the parent's appeal (see Appeal of Y.O., 59 Ed. Dep't Rep., Decision No. 17,842 [2020] [dismissing an appeal before the Commissioner of Education for lack of proper verification where a non-party completed the verification], available at https://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17842).

VI. Conclusion

Having found that the parent's request for review failed to comply with the practice regulations as explained above, the appeal must be dismissed.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.