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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered their daughter appropriate educational programming and denied their request to be reimbursed for her tuition costs at the Churchill School & Center (Churchill) 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 respondents' (the parents') son and ordered the district to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Windward School (Windward) for the 2021-22, and 2022-23 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 denied her request for direct funding of the costs of her daughter's private special education teacher support services (SETSS) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

Appeal Withdrawn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) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of the unilaterally obtained services delivered to her daughter at specified rates for the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent cross-appeals from the IHO's order directing the district to fund a bank of compensatory educational services for the student.  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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding her son's educational program for the 2023-24 school year with prejudice.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that ordered the district to take certain actions going forward.  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.  Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) daughter and ordered it to directly fund the cost of the student's education at the International Academy of Hope (iHope) and to reimburse the parent for his daughter's individual nursing services for a portion of 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which ordered respondent (the district) to fund an award of compensatory educational 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.  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 the Mother Franciska Elementary School (MFES) 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 a portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which included a "clerical mistake" in the relief ordered relating to the 2022-23 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that directed the district to fund/reimburse the parent for the costs of the unilaterally-obtained services delivered to the student for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained.

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) which denied her request to be fully reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain), 1:1 nursing services, and transportation services for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO), which denied in part their request for tuition funding 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, his requested relief for respondent's (the district's) failure to offer his son an appropriate program for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part.

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 determined that respondent (the district) offered their son appropriate educational programming and denied their request for direct funding of their son's tuition costs at the Gersh Academy (Gersh) for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of services delivered to their daughter by Kids Domain Childcare Center (Kids Domain) at a specified rate for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the parents were entitled to an award of compensatory education.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.

Appeal Withdrawn

Appeal Withdrawn