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 dismissed her due process complaint notice regarding respondent's (the district's) provision of educational services to her son for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained, 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) that dismissed her due process complaint notice against respondent (the district) without prejudice.  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 respondent (the district) offered her son an appropriate educational program and denied her request to be reimbursed for the costs of her son's tuition at the Hamaspik School (Hamaspik) 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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied funding of the entire annual cost of the student's attendance at Reach for the Stars (RFTS) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals only to the extent that the IHO determined the student's unilateral placement at RFTS to be appropriate for the entire school year.  The appeal must be sustained in part, and 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) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fully fund the costs of their son's services at the Reach for the Stars Learning and Developing LLC (RFTS) program for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found that the district did not offer the student appropriate special education programming for the 2023-24 school year and that the services unilaterally obtained by the parents were appropriate to meet the student's needs.  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.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of their son's program at the Reach for the Stars ("RFTS") for June 2024 of the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which determined that equitable considerations supported the parents' requested relief and ordered the district to fund the costs of the student's services at RFTS for July 2023 through May 2024 of the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.  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 district) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined it failed to provide respondent's (the parent's) son an appropriate educational program and services for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years and awarded 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 compensatory education related to the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which denied its request to dismiss the parent's claims.  The appeal must be dismissed.  The cross-appeal must be dismissed.

This State-level administrative review is being conducted pursuant to an order of remand issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for adjudication of petitioners' (the parents') appeal of an impartial hearing officer's (IHO's) decision issued after remand (see R.Z. v. Banks, 24-CV-4401 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024]).  The parents appeal from an IHO decision issued after remand which clarified a pendency determination that respondent (the district) shall reimburse the parents for the costs related to providing transportation services to their son only for each school day that their son used the transportation 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) issued after remand, which denied her request to be reimbursed by the respondent (the district) for her daughter's tuition at the Special Torah Education Program (STEP) for the 2021-22 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 a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied his request that respondent (the district) fund the costs of his son's special education teacher support services (SETSS) delivered by Proceed Services, Inc. (Proceed Services) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting, in pertinent part, that the IHO incorrectly denied its motion to dismiss the parent's claims based on a lack of subject jurisdiction.  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 that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for funding of private services delivered by HLER, LLC (HLER) for the 2023-24 school year.  Respondent (the district) cross-appeals, among other things, that portion of the IHO's decision which determined that the student was eligible for equitable services for the 2023-24 school year under State law. The appeal must be dismissed. The cross-appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.

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 that portion of a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request for respondent (the district) to fund the costs of her daughter's home-based services for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found that the district failed to recommend an appropriate educational program for the student and ordered it to fund the student's tuition costs at Manhattan Children's Center (MCC) for the 2023-24 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 parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request that respondent (the district) fully fund the costs of her daughter's private special education services delivered by McDonald Enhanced Learning (McDonald Learning) for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals from those portions of the IHO's decision which found equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parent's requested relief and which directed the district to convene a Committee on Special Education (CSE) to develop an individualized education program (IEP) or an individualized education services program (IESP) for the student for the 2024-25 school year.  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 determined that the educational programs respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for her daughter for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years were appropriate.  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 dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice regarding the educational program respondent's (the district's) Committee on Special Education (CSE) had recommended for his son for the 2024-25 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 Yeled v'Yalda for the 2023-24 school year.  The district cross-appeals asserting that the IHO lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the parent's claims.  The appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.  The cross-appeal must be denied.