Advance Decisions Search

Appeal Withdrawn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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after remand which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's privately-obtained special education services delivered by Benchmark Student Services LLC (Benchmark) for the 2022-23 school year and denied, in part, her request for compensatory education.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered it to reevaluate the student and convene a Committee on Special Education (CSE).  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request for full payment of the costs of their daughter's tuition at Reach for the Stars for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to reimburse the respondent (the parents) or directly fund their daughter's special education services provided by Alpha Student Support (Alpha) during 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 found 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 Bay Ridge Preparatory School (Bay Ridge) 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that the related services respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) recommended for his son for the 2023-24 school year were appropriate and which denied the parent's request that the district fund the costs of her son's privately-obtained special education services delivered by Kids Domain Childcare Center (Kids Domain).  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which ordered the district to fund a bank of compensatory educational services for the student for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.  The appeal must be sustained.  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.  Petitioner (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered appropriate educational programming to their son and denied their request to be reimbursed for their son's tuition costs at the Stephen Gaynor School (Stephen Gaynor) 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which partially denied her request to be reimbursed for certain costs associated with her son's educational placements for the 2019-20, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years and which denied her request for compensatory educational services.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's direction that the district fund costs associated with an educational consultant.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  The cross-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 her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's privately-obtained special education services delivered by Ed Achievers for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision arguing that the IHO applied an incorrect legal standard.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their full request for compensatory education services to remedy respondent's (the district's) failure to offer their son an appropriate educational program and services for the 2022-23 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 determined that respondent (the district) offered the student an appropriate educational program for the 2021-22 and 2023-24 school years and denied their request for compensatory education related to the 2021-22 school year and prospective placement 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that he failed to timely request equitable services from respondent (the district) pursuant to Education Law § 3602-c for the 2023-24 school year and denied his request that the district fund his daughter's private special education services delivered by Always a Step Ahead Inc. (Step Ahead) 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer appropriate educational programming to respondent's (the parent's) son during the 2021-22 school year and ordered it to fund compensatory education services.  The parent cross-appeals from the IHO's denial of her request for an independent functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and behavioral intervention plan (BIP), and from the IHO's findings that the district did not deny the student a FAPE for the 2021-22 school year on other grounds.  The appeal must be dismissed.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of services delivered to her son by AIM Educational Support Services (AIM) at a specified rate 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which reduced the amount of funding awarded for the cost of her son's tuition at the Ha'Or Beacon School (Ha'Or Beacon) for the 2022-23 school year based on equitable considerations.  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 denied her request for compensatory education services for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the Burlington-Carter standard did not apply to the parent's requested relief.  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's privately-obtained special education services delivered by SPED Tutoring Services, Inc., (SPED Tutoring) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after a remand for clarification regarding her daughter's pendency placement that was so ordered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see Davis v. Banks, 2023 WL 5917659 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2023]).  The IHO issued an amended final decision, which ordered the district to fund private transportation services only for each school day that the student used the services.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent that the IHO issued an amended decision.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part and the matter remanded to the IHO for further proceedings.