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 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.

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 district funding of her daughter's special education teacher support services (SETSS) and related services 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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for 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 it had offered to provide an appropriate educational program to the student for that 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. Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO II) which determined that the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for their daughter for the 2023-24 school year was appropriate and denied their request for district funding for QEEG brain mapping to be conducted by an out-of-state provider of the parents' choosing.  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 educational services for her daughter to remedy respondent's (the district's) denial of appropriate educational programming during the 2021-22, 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.  Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) reimburse her for her daughter's tuition costs at Strivright Auditory Oral School of New York (Strivright) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part and the matter remanded to the IHO for further proceedings.

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 request to be fully reimbursed for the costs of their daughter's tuition at the Shefa School (Shefa) 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied in part their request to be reimbursed for their daughter's tuition costs at the Manhattan Star Academy (MSA) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the district failed to demonstrate that it had offered to provide an appropriate educational program to 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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied, in part, her request that respondent (the district) directly fund the costs of her son's special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Future Plus Services (Future Plus) at a specified rate for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that ordered the district to directly fund the costs of the student's SETSS services at a capped rate.  The appeal must be sustained in part.  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 the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied in part her request for direct funding of the costs of her son's private special education teacher support services (SETSS) 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 dismissed the parent's claims pertaining to their daughter's education program for the 2021-22 school year based on the IDEA's statute of limitations.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from the IHO's determination that the district failed to demonstrate it had offered to provide an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2022-23 school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part and the matter remanded to the IHO for further proceedings.  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 determined that respondent (the district) failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years but did not fully award the relief the parent requested due to an alleged inadvertent omission in the IHO's ordering clauses.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision that awarded the parent a prospective placement for her son.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be sustained.