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 denied her request to be reimbursed for the costs of her daughter's tuition at Bnos Chedvah at Yesodei Bina Williamsburg School (Bnos Chedvah) for the 2024-25 school year.  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[a]).  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 disposition of this matter on procedural grounds, a detailed recitation of the facts relating to the student's educational history is not necessary.  Briefly, however, a CSE convened on June 4, 2024, found the student eligible to receive special education as a student with a speech or language impairment and developed an IEP with an implementation date of June 21, 2024 (Parent Ex. D at pp. 1, 25).[1]  The June  2024 CSE recommended 12-month program for the student consisting of a 12:1+1 special class placement for instruction in mathematics, English language arts (ELA), social studies, and sciences (all delivered in Yiddish); and related services consisting of counseling, occupational therapy (OT), and speech-language therapy (id. at pp. 20-21).  The June 2024 CSE also recommended that the student receive the following special transportation accommodations and services: "[t]ransportation from the closest safe curb location to school" (id. at p. 25).

On September 2, 2024, the parent executed an enrollment contract with Bnos Chedvah for the student's attendance during the 2024-25 school year from July 3, 2024 through August 26, 2024, and for September 4, 2024 through June 18, 2025 (see Parent Ex. F at pp. 1, 5; see also Parent Ex. I).[2]  On the same date, September 2, 2024, the parent executed a transportation contract with Bnos Chedvah to provide transportation services for the student's attendance during the 2024-25 school year (see Parent Ex. Q at pp. 1, 3).

By due process complaint notice dated July 18, 2025, the parent, through her attorney, alleged that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2024-25 school year (see Parent Ex. A at p. 1).  The parent indicated that the student required a "full time special education program" to provide her with "individualized support" the student required in order to make "meaningful academic progress" (id. at p. 2).  The parent further indicated that she was "concerned regarding the sufficiency of the 12:1+1 program" and had "no way of implementing this program" because the district had "failed to provide an appropriate corresponding public school placement" (id.).  According to the parent, when speaking with an individual at the assigned public school site, she was informed that the "school did not offer any Yiddish Special Class program" as recommended in the student's June 2024 IEP; as a result, the parent indicated that she had "no choice but to reject the [district's] public school placement" (id. at p. 5).  The parent then noted that she had provided the district with a 10-day notice of unilateral placement and had outlined her "concerns with the program" within the notice (id.).  According to the parent, the district did not respond to the 10-day notice, and this violation resulted in a failure to offer the student a FAPE for the 2024-25 school year (id. at pp. 5-6).  As relief for the alleged violations, the parent requested an order directing the district to fund the costs of the student's unilateral placement at Bnos Chedvah for the 2024-25 school year (id. at p. 6).      

On August 18, 2025, the parties proceeded to an impartial hearing before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) for a prehearing conference; on September 17, 2025, the impartial hearing resumed and then concluded on October 29, 2025, after three total days of proceedings (see Tr. pp. 1-67; Pre-Hr'g Conference Summary & Order at p. 1).  In a decision dated October 30, 2025, the IHO found that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2024-25 school year and that Bnos Chedvah was an appropriate unilateral placement (see IHO Decision at pp. 2-6).  However, the IHO found that equitable considerations did not weigh in favor of the parent's requested relief because the parent failed to provide the district with a 10-day notice of unilateral placement for the 2024-25 school year and because the parent was not contractually obligated to pay for the student's tuition and transportation services for the 2024-25 school year (id. at pp. 6-7).  As a result, the IHO denied the parent's request for an order directing the district to fund the costs of the student's tuition and transportation costs for the 2024-25 school year (id. at pp. 7-8).   

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent appeals, alleging that the IHO erred by finding that equitable considerations barred funding for the costs of the student's tuition and transportation services for the 2024-25 school year. 

In an answer, the district initially asserts that the parent's request for review must be dismissed as untimely.  The district further argues that the request for review fails to assert any good cause for the parent's delay in serving the request for review.  The district has also submitted additional documentary evidence in support of its arguments.  In addition, the district's attorney has provided a declaration in support of her arguments regarding the appeal.  In the alternative, the district asserts that the IHO correctly denied the parent's request for funding based on equitable considerations and that the IHO's decision should be affirmed in its entirety.

IV. Discussion—Timeliness of Request for Review

As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether or not the parent's appeal should be dismissed for failure 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 parent failed to initiate the appeal in accordance with the timelines prescribed in Part 279 of the State regulations.  The IHO's decision is dated October 30, 2025; thus, the parent had until December 9, 2025 to personally serve the district with a verified request for review (see IHO Decision at p. 8; 8 NYCRR 279.4[a]).

The parent served the request for review upon the district on December 11, 2025 (see Parent Aff. of Electronic Service).  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]).

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"]).

Accordingly, because the parent failed to properly initiate this appeal by effectuating timely service upon the district and there was no good cause asserted for its untimeliness in the request for review, in an exercise of my discretion, the appeal is dismissed (8 NYCRR 279.13; see Vasquez v. Aviles Ramos, et al, 2026 WL 203270, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2026]; 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. 18-046 [dismissing request for review for being served one day late]).

V. Conclusion

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.