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 modified the educational program and services recommended by respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) for her daughter for the 2024-25 school year, ordered the district to develop a new IEP with goals to address the student's academic deficits, and ordered the district to fund a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation.  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 limited scope of this appeal and the disposition of this matter on procedural grounds, a detailed recitation of the facts relating to the student's educational history is not necessary.

In a due process complaint notice dated May 9, 2025, the parent alleged that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2024-25 school year. The parent alleged that the district failed to recommend an appropriate program for the student, causing the parent to homeschool the student in January of 2025 (Dist. Ex. 1).  For relief, the parent sought an alternative educational program for the student within her neighborhood district, consisting of half days, a 1:1 paraprofessional for the student and participation in speech-language therapy, occupational therapy (OT), "[g]ym", art, music, library, and assembly days (id. at p. 3).

The parties convened for an impartial hearing on July 28, 2025, which concluded on August 13, 2025, after three days of proceedings (Jul. 28, 2025 Tr. at pp. 1-79; Aug. 4, 2025 Tr. at pp. 80-148; Aug. 13, 2025 Tr. at pp. 80-173).[1]   In a decision dated October 20, 2025, the IHO found that the district's program "may well be able to meet [the] student's needs and appear[ed] reasonably calculated to do so" but modified the program to address the student's behavioral needs (IHO Decision at pp. 11-12).  

Ultimately, the IHO ordered the district to provide a 1:1 "assistant teacher, aide or paraprofessional" with the ability to remove the student to a private setting as needed; develop a new IEP with goals to address the student's academic deficits; provide the student with OT and speech-language therapy consistent with the recommendations set forth by the student's evaluations; provide the student with activities including art, music and library to the extent feasible; and fund a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation by the end of the 2025-26 school year (IHO Decision at pp. 14-15; see Dist. Exs. 14-15).  In the event the student "experienced difficulty making it through a full day," the IHO directed the district to shorten the student's school day on a temporary basis or if more frequent, "initiate a re-evaluation to determine what changes, if any, are needed to address [the] student's learning needs" (IHO Decision at pp. 14-15).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent appeals and requests that the SRO reverse the IHO's findings; order the CSE to develop an "in-district IEP" with the parent's specific recommendations; order multiple independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense; and to reconvene the CSE within 15 school days of receipt of the SRO's decision.[2]

In an answer, the district generally denies the allegations set forth in the parent's request for review and asserts that the parent's request for review should be dismissed as untimely.

V. Discussion –- Timeliness of Request for Review

As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether the parent's appeal should be dismissed for failing to comply with State regulations governing appeals before the Office of State Review.

An appeal from an IHO's decision to an SRO must be initiated by timely personal service of a notice of request for review and a verified request for review and other supporting documents upon a respondent (8 NYCRR 279.4[a]).  A request for review must be personally served within 40 days after the date of the IHO's decision to be reviewed (id.).  If the last day for service of any pleading or paper falls on a Saturday or Sunday, service may be made on the following Monday; if the last day for such service falls on a legal holiday, service may be made on the following business day (8 NYCRR 279.11[b]).  State regulation provides an SRO with the authority to dismiss sua sponte an untimely request for review (8 NYCRR 279.13; see e.g., Application of the Board of Educ., Appeal No. 17-100 [dismissing a district's appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service on the parent]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-014 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate service in a timely manner]). 

Here, the IHO's decision was dated October 20, 2025 and 40 days after the date of the IHO's decision was a Saturday; thus, the parent had until Monday, December 1, 2025, to personally serve the district with a verified request for review (see IHO Decision; 8 NYCRR 279.4[a], 279.11[b]).  On December 4, 2025 the parent filed the following documents with the Office of State Review: a notice of intention to seek review dated October 23, 2025; a notice of request for review dated October 23, 2025; a request for review dated December 1, 2025; an affidavit of verification sworn to on December 3, 2025; and an affidavit of personal service sworn to on December 3, 2025, indicating that the request for review was served "[o]n December in the morning."[3]

 An SRO may, in his or her sole discretion, excuse a failure to timely seek review within the 40-day timeline for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 279.13).  The reasons for the failure must be set forth in the request for review (id.).  "Good cause for late filing would be something like postal service error, or, in other words, an event that the filing party had no control over" (Grenon v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 2006 WL 3751450, at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2006]; see T.W. v. Spencerport Cent. Sch. Dist., 891 F. Supp. 2d 438, 441 [W.D.N.Y. 2012]).

The parent's request for review did not acknowledge that the request for review was not timely served and did not specify any cause for the late filing as required by State regulation which specifically states that the reason for a late filing "shall be set forth in the request for review" (8 NYCRR 279.13).  In its answer, the district asserts that the parent did not serve the request for review on the district until December 3, 2025 (Answer ¶ 6).  The parent did not interpose a response to the district's answer.  As the parent has failed to assert good cause—or any reason whatsoever—in her request for review for the failure to timely initiate the appeal from the IHO's decision (see 8 NYCRR 279.13), there is no basis on which to excuse the parent's failure to timely appeal the IHO's decision (see 8 NYCRR 279.13; see also B.D.S. v. Southold Union Free Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 13305167, at *17 [E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011] [noting that "[i]nadvertence, mistake or neglect does not constitute good cause"]).

Based on the foregoing, the parent failed to properly initiate this appeal by effectuating timely service upon the district, and there is no good cause asserted in the request for review; accordingly, in an exercise of my discretion, the appeal is dismissed (8 NYCRR 279.13; see Avaras v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 4600870, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2019] [upholding SRO's decision to dismiss request for review as untimely for being served nine hours late notwithstanding proffered reason of process server's error]; New York City Dep't of Educ. v. S.H., 2014 WL 572583, at *5-*7 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2014] [upholding SRO's decision to reject petition as untimely for being served one day late]; B.C. v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 971 F. Supp. 2d 356, 365-67 [S.D.N.Y. 2013]; T.W., 891 F. Supp. 2d at 440-41; Kelly v. Saratoga Springs City Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 3163146, at *4-*5 [Sept. 25, 2009] [upholding dismissal of a petition served three days late]; Keramaty v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 05-CV-0006, at *39-*41 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2006] [upholding dismissal of a petition served one day late], adopted [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2006]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 23-294 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate timely service when the appeal papers were sent by email that was received by the district seven seconds past the deadline for timely service]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 18-046 [dismissing request for review for being served one day late]).

VI. Conclusion

Having exercised my discretion to dismiss the request for review because the parent failed to timely initiate the appeal pursuant to State regulations, the necessary inquiry is at an end.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.