Advance Decisions Search

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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer appropriate equitable services to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to fund a bank of compensatory educational services, consisting of special education teacher support services (SETSS), occupational therapy (OT), and counseling services for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

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, in part, her request for compensatory education to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to offer or provide her son an appropriate educational program for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice regarding the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  The appeal must be sustained.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for home-based applied behavior analysis (ABA) services for their son.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the portion of the IHO's decision which granted funding for an assistive technology device.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be sustained.

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 for direct funding of equitable services for her son for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied the district's motion to dismiss the parent’s request for equitable services.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

File Administratively Closed

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) that denied her request for compensatory education related to the 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 school years, denied her request for funding by respondent (the district) for the costs of an independent educational evaluation (IEE), and held that awards for special education services should be delivered via special education teacher support services (SETSS) instead of special education itinerant teacher (SEIT) services.  The district cross-appeals the IHO's finding that the district committed procedural violations; the order directing the district to conduct evaluations for the 2023-24 school year; and the order directing the district to fund services for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at Darchai Menachem for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's decision on equitable grounds.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered their daughter an appropriate educational program for the 2023-24 school year and denied their request for tuition reimbursement.  The appeal must be dismissed.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered their son appropriate educational programming and denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at The Quad Preparatory School (Quad Prep) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal Withdrawn

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, in part, the parent's request for respondent (the district) to fund his son's full tuition costs at Darchai Menachem for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which ordered it to fund a portion of the student's tuition at Darchai Menachem for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

File Administratively Closed

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 found that respondent (the district) offered her daughter appropriate educational programming and denied her request to be reimbursed for her daughter's tuition costs at The Vincent Smith School (Vincent Smith) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request to be fully reimbursed for their daughter's tuition at the Shefa School (Shefa) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed their request to be reimbursed by respondent (the district) for their son's tuition costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to fund a bank of compensatory education services to the student for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for funding or reimbursement for the cost of their son's tuition at Academics West for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it offered the student an appropriate educational program for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years and that Academics West, LLC (Academics West) was an appropriate placement for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

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 in part denied her request for funding or reimbursement from the district for the unilaterally obtained special education services delivered to her son by Higher Level Education Resources (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's lack of a determination as to whether the private services delivered by HLER were appropriate for the student and from the IHO's determination that the parent was not barred from relief by the June 1st notice requirement.  The appeal must be sustained.  The cross-appeal must dismissed.

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 district) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to respondents' (the parents') son in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and ordered it to reimburse the parents' for their son's tuition costs at the Bishop Timon-St. Jude Highschool (Timon) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.