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 interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) to schedule an impartial hearing and refusal to rule on a motion filed against the respondent (the district) on behalf of her daughter.[1]  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

Given the procedural posture of the matter—namely that no impartial hearing regarding the merits of the parent's due process complaint notice has yet been held so there has not been any development of an evidentiary record regarding the student through testimony or exhibits entered into evidence, the description of the facts is limited to the parent's filing papers, documents attached thereto, and additional correspondence.

Briefly, according to the parent, the student began attending Hawthorne County Day School (Hawthorne) in February 2024 (Not. of Intention to Seek Review at p. 9).  On December 17, 2024, a CSE convened, finding the student continued to be eligible for special education as a student with autism and created an IEP with a projected implementation date of January 2, 2025 (id. at pp. 63, 101).  The December 2024 CSE recommended for the student a 6:1+2 special education program in a state-approved nonpublic day school along with one 30-minute session per week of individual counseling services, three 30-minute sessions per week of individual occupational therapy (OT), two 30-minute sessions per month of individual physical therapy (PT), three 30-minute sessions per month of individual speech-language therapy, the services of an individual full-time paraprofessional for behavior support, an individual dynamic display speech-generating device, a twelve-month program, and special transportation (id. at pp. 93-95, 98).  The CSE also recommended one 60-minute session per month of group parent counseling and training (id. at p. 94).

According to the parent's papers filed with the Office of State Review, on July 29, 2025, the parent withdrew the student from Hawthorne (Not. of Intention to Seek Review at p. 9).  On July 31, 2025, the parent filed a due process complaint notice "alleg[ing] a number of issues, including that [d]istrict failed to implement [s]tudent's IEP and failed to offer an appropriate placement" and the parent requested "among other things, an appropriate placement" (id. at p. 60).  A prehearing conference was held on September 9, 2025 (id. at pp. 119-55).  The IHO issued an interim order the same day as the prehearing conference, September 9, 2025, directing the district to provide the parent with a voucher for transportation costs and to complete all required evaluations of the student within 35 days of the date of the decision (id. at pp. 58, 61).  A status conference was held on October 8, 2025, wherein the parent requested a hearing, so the IHO scheduled a hearing date of October 24, 2025 and explained the discovery and hearing process to the parent (Oct. 8, 2025 Tr. pp. 8-39).[2]  On October 17, 2025, the parent requested that the IHO convert the October 24, 2025 scheduled hearing date to a status conference; the IHO granted the parent's request but the parent failed to appear at the October 24, 2025 status conference (Not. of Intention to Seek Review at pp. 158, 160).  On November 12, 2025, a second status conference was held with all parties in attendance and the parties scheduled a hearing date for December 15, 2025 (Nov. 12, 2025 Tr. pp. 66-67, 75).

On November 18, 2025, the parent filed a "Motion for Sanctions and Emergency Relief" and notified the IHO that the parent "require[d] an immediate ruling on the Motion before any further scheduling may take place" (Not. of Intention to Seek Review at pp. 54-57).[3]  On November 19, 2025, the district requested "time to respond to the [p]arent's motion" (id. at p. 32).  The IHO responded to all parties on November 19, 2025, notifying the parent and the district that he would "address procedural aspects of the case, such as the motions [p]arent ha[d] made via email, once [they] pick[ed] a date for the in-person hearing" (id. at p. 33).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

On November 25, 2025, the parent filed a document entitled "Emergency Petition for Review and Immediate Intervention" and an "Emergency Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record" with the Office of State Review to appeal the IHO's decision to schedule an impartial hearing instead of issuing an immediate ruling on the parent's motion (Not. of Intention to Seek Review at p. 1).[4]  On the same day that the parent filed her emergency petition, the IHO emailed the parties, notifying the parent that "an SRO appeal cannot be initiated until a case has been concluded, except with respect to pendency, which is not presently at issue" (id. at p. 169).  Later, on November 25, 2025, the IHO emailed the parties that an impartial hearing on the merits has been scheduled for January 21, 2026, and attached a copy of the IHO's hearing rules (id. at pp. 171-74).

On December 1, 2025, the parent submitted to the Office of State Review additional correspondence consisting of a "Second Emergency Motion for Leave to Further Supplement the Record" and a "Third Letter to Supplement the Record." In her papers, the parent stated that she had been contacted on November 26, 2025 by a district provider who was attempting to schedule a psychological evaluation of the student, received text messages on December 1, 2025 from a district provider, and received an email on December 1, 2025 from the district's implementation unit offering transportation to facilitate the student's evaluation appointment..[5]  Subsequently, the parent filed additional papers with the Office of State Review.

V. Discussion and Conclusion

At the outset, the parent's papers filed with the Office of State Review demonstrate that although the impartial hearing process has commenced with the holding of a preliminary conference and multiple status conferences, as well as the parent filing an emergency motion, the matter nevertheless has not yet concluded at the impartial hearing level.  It is scheduled to continue at the impartial hearing level on January 21, 2026 for the parties to present evidence and arguments about their respective cases (see Not. of Intention to Seek Review at pp. 54-57, 119-55, 158-64, 171-75; Oct. 8, 2025 Tr.  pp. 8-39; Corr. 2 at pp. 15-46); thus, the parent's contentions on appeal are not within the scope of a permissible interlocutory appeal and, at this juncture, are outside the scope of my review.  State regulations governing the practice of appeals from the decisions of IHOs related to matters concerning the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with a disability limit appeals from an IHO's interim determination to those involving pendency (stay-put) disputes (8 NYCRR 279.10[d]; see Educ. Law § 4404[4]).  Here, the IHO has scheduled a hearing on the merits and accommodated the parent's request to reschedule the hearing date, but the parent is now seeking an immediate ruling on her Motion for Sanctions and Emergency Relief and an additional emergency motion against the IHO accusing him of misconduct (see generally Not. of Intention to Seek Review).[6]  Therefore, to the extent that the parent appeals from an interim IHO decision or the IHO's failure to rule on the parent's emergency motion, State regulation does not allow for an interlocutory appeal on issues other than pendency disputes, the parent's appeal must be dismissed as premature (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-475; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 24-385; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-120; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 18-075).  In short, despite the parent's stated concerns, no appeal of such concerns is permissible in this matter until the parties and the IHO have completed the impartial hearing process and the IHO has issued a final decision in the case.

While consideration of the parent's allegations on appeal is premature at this juncture, it does not prevent later review of the IHO's decisions or failure to rule after the IHO renders a final determination.  State regulation provides that a "party may seek review of any interim ruling, decision, or failure or refusal to decide an issue" in an appeal from an IHO's final determination (8 NYCRR 279.10[d]).  Thus, if necessary, the parent may appeal allegations regarding her emergency motion after the IHO closes the hearing record and issues a final determination on the issues presented in the parent's due process complaint notice.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.