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.  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.

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 in part her request for funding of her son's tuition costs at the Big N Little: Stars of Israel Program (Stars of Israel) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that it failed to demonstrate that it had offered an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2023-24 school year and that the parent's unilateral placement was appropriate.  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 found that it failed to offer appropriate equitable services to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to reimburse the parent for the costs of the student's special education teacher support services (SETSS) provided by Think Pink, LLC 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) to the extent it did not order an hourly rate for the awarded special education teacher support services (SETSS) and did not order respondent (the district) to issue a related services authorization (RSA) for the parent to obtain occupational therapy (OT) services for the student during 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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it waived an affirmative defense, failed to provide equitable services to respondent's (the parent's) daughter, and ordered it to fund the costs of the student's privately-obtained special education services delivered by LAR Learning (agency) during the 2023-24 school year and provide compensatory education services.  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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her son's programming at Big N Little: Tiferet Torah Program (Tiferet Torah) 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 ordered it to fund the costs of respondents' (the parents') son's private special education services delivered by AIM Educational Support Services (AIM) 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 an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to directly fund the provision of special education teacher support services (SETSS) by the parent's chosen provider upon proof of provision of 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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to fund the costs of respondent (the parent's) son's privately obtained special education services delivered by Empowered Kids for Success (Empowered) 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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to fund the costs of respondent (the parent's) son's privately obtained special education services delivered by Empowered Kids for Success (Empowered) 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 ordered it to fund the costs of respondent's (the parent's) son's private special education services delivered by Empowered Kids for Success (Empowered) 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 ordered it to fund respondent's (the parent's) daughter's private services delivered by AIM Educational Support Services (AIM) 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of the unilaterally-obtained special education services delivered to her daughter by Limud, Inc. (Limud) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's award of a bank of related services as compensatory education. 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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered it to fund the costs of respondent's (the parent's) daughter's private special education services.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) issued after remand which denied her request for respondent (the district) to fully fund the costs of her daughter's unilaterally-obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Budding Buds, LLC (Budding Buds) for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the parent's unilaterally-obtained SETSS were appropriate and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parent's requested relief.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.