Decisions

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 found that respondent (the district) offered her son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and denied the parent's request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition at the Big N Little: Ziv Hatorah Program (Ziv Hatorah) 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of her daughter's private services delivered by Headway Services (Headway) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which directed the district to reevaluate the student.  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 an appropriate educational program to respondent's (the parent's) son and ordered it to fully reimburse the parent for her son's tuition costs at the Mill Basin Yeshiva Academy (Mill Basin) for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.  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 awarded partial funding for the cost of the special education services and speech-language therapy delivered to her son by Upgrade Resources (Upgrade) at specified rates for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the parent's unilaterally-obtained services were appropriate and from the IHO's findings related to equitable considerations.  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Appeal Withdrawn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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied in part their request for funding of unilaterally obtained special education teacher support services (SETSS) for their son delivered by Path 2 Potential for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which granted funding in part for Path 2 Potential.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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 denied her request for direct funding for special transportation services 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 decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for unilaterally obtained services delivered to her daughter by Benchmark Student Services (Benchmark) for the 2022-23 school year on the basis that the parent did not notify respondent (the district) of her request for equitable services prior to June 1, 2022.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which found that equitable considerations favored the parent.  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, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining her son's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed their due process complaint alleging that respondent (the district) failed to find their daughter eligible for special 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from aspects of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) related to an order for respondent (the district) to fund the costs of an independent educational evaluation (IEE).  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 denied her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of the special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered to her daughter by Urban Student Services (Urban) at a specified rate for the 2023-24 school year, and which dismissed her due process complaint notice with prejudice.  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 their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the International Academy for the Brain (iBrain) for the period of April 17, 2023  through June 23, 2023.  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 her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of math tutoring services delivered to her son during 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) offered her son an appropriate educational program for the 2023-24 school year and denied her request that the district fund the costs of services delivered to her son at specified rates for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that failed to limit the scope of the impartial hearing to the allegations in the due process complaint notice.  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 ordered respondent (the district) to fund the costs of his son's private services delivered by EdZone, LLC (EdZone) for the 2023-24 school year but without specifying the rate therefor.  The district cross-appeals from the IHO's decision to the extent it did not order the district to fund services at the rate proposed by the district and ordered the district to fund private related services.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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, pursuant to section 8 NYCRR 279.10(d) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, from an interim decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) determining her daughter's pendency placement during a due process proceeding challenging the appropriateness of respondent's (the district's) recommended educational program for the student 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 held that the district failed to prove that it provided the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2022-23 school year and directed the district to reimburse respondents (the parents) for the tuition they paid for the student's placement at the Stephen Gaynor School (Stephen Gaynor) 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 her request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of the occupational therapy (OT) services delivered to her son by Always a Step Ahead, Inc. (Step Ahead or agency) at a specified rate for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.