NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 165035
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: February 13, 2017
February 27, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: March 10, 2017
Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2017
Attorney — Student
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 27, 2017
Attorney — Student
Student
Parents
District Representative — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On 01/05/2017 I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) (1).
A hearing was conducted and appearances made by the parties as indicated herein.
Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.
This matter was instituted by the impartial hearing request dated 01/03/2017 alleging that the Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a procedurally valid and substantively appropriate Individual Education Program (IEP) and placement for the student, for the 2016/2017 school year. Parent alleges that this failure resulted in a denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the student for the 2016-2017 school year. (Ex A 1)
Relief sought includes funding or reimbursement for unilateral placement at the and a declaratory finding that the student’s right to a FAPE was violated. (Ex A 5)
BACKGROUND
At start of the 2016-2107 school year the Student was , classified as . (Ex A 1)
Parent received placement offer through DOE, rejected offer and placed Student at . (Ex A, B & C)
Presently Student attends . (Ex A)
Parties agreed that Student schedule includes in the form of and . (T 31)
THE PARENT’S POSITION
( ) presented the parent’s position.
PARENT WITNESS
( ), the Student’s father appeared and testified at hearing of
02/27/2017.
Student disability was noticed at an early age of about . (T 44)
Student started school at , a school. He attended for two years. Family then moved to . Special education services of a were provided. (T 45)
Family remained in for a year then came back to .
Student was placed at . (T 46)
Parent participated in an IEP meeting in March of 2016. (T 46)
Parent was asked if he believed is appropriate.
“
.”
Progress is noted in communicating and speaking. (T 48)
Parent has not made any payments towards tuition. (T 48)
Referring to Tax Return document in evidence Witness states that his 2014 and
2015 income were about the same. Income for 2016 is “ ”. (T 50, Ex J)
For 2016 commissions are about . (T 51)
Witness has not made any payments towards tuition. “
.” (T 51)
. (T 51)
. (T 52)
PARENT WITNESS
( ) reviewed her educational and professional background and testified as the director of . (T 19-21)
is a . “
.”
Student class has . (T 21-22 & 40)
Educational goals are developed for the students and updated weekly. (T 22-23)
Student’s class has ages . (T 23)
Class has . (T 43)
program exists: “
.” (T 23-24)
During the Student received school funded related services in the by licensed providers. (T 24)
Teachers are . (T 24-25)
One of the Student’s teachers is not certified. (T 25)
Student receives
. (T 25-26)
Student s described as
. (T 26)
“
.” (T 27)
are “
.” (T 28)
Student has “
.” (T 28)
Witness described a typical Student day.
. (T 28-30, Ex K)
Witness testified as to Student challenges and progress. Student has
“
.” (T 33)
Student is in for . It is difficult for the Student to
. (T 34)
Witness described . This includes
. Student is in
. (T 34-35)
are about at . (T 36)
deficits are addressed, in part, through , and
. (T 36-37)
is appropriate for the Student: “
” (T 37-38)
Student progress is measured and data collected. (T 39)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POSITION
( ) District Representative, presented the DOE position.
appeared at hearing of 02/13/2017 and requested an adjournment due to witness availability. (T 5)
Adjournment was denied. Adjournment request did not comport with procedure indicated by hearing office in Notice of Appointment sent to the parties.
(IHO Ex I) Also it was apparent to the hearing officer that no such witness actually existed and request was made merely to attempt to avoid proceeding as required.
eventually admitted the DOE actually had not started to prepare its case, confirming no witness actually existed. (T 6)
DOE had “
.” (T 31)
clarified to include and as . (T 31)
DOE also indicated they have no objection to the Student placement at .
(T 31)
DOE does have an objection to the amount of tuition sought as relief by the Parent, though no evidence will be presented. (T 31)
If Parent is successful at hearing the DOE does not object to direct funding of tuition to . (T 52-53)
FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION
Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and
(2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct.
2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).
A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; H.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 [2d Cir. June 24, 2013]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't.
of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012], cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 [U.S. June
10, 2013]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida
Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206]; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]).
While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v.
Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent.
Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]).
Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a)
impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).
The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132 [quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989)] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379).
Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195 [quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130]
[citations omitted]); see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
(20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent.
Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; G.B. v. Tuxedo
Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 2012 WL 4946429 [2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012]; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp.
2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428
[W.D.N.Y. 2008]).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6[S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).
A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington
v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192).
"Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR
300.148).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).
The parent bears the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129; Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419). A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-085; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 08-025; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-016; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-097; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-038; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of Case No. 165035 a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-105). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement…'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 [identifying exceptions]). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-
65). When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15 [noting that even though the unilateral placement provided special education, the evidence did not show that it provided special education services specifically needed by the student]; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365; Stevens v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 1005165, *9 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010])
The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.
(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-
65).
Consideration in determining whether, in to what degree, reimbursement for a unilateral placement is appropriate requires balancing of the relevant equitable considerations applicable to the parents' claim. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; see S.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2009 WL 857549, at *13-14 [S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2009]; Thies v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 344728 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 53181, at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2008]; Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560, at *4 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]; Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 373
F. Supp. 2d 402, 417-18 [S.D.N.Y. 2005], aff'd, 2006 WL 2335140 [2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2006]; Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 660-61 [S.D.N.Y.
2005]; see also Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9; Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167
F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-
079; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-032).
The IDEA allows that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d][1]). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided
While parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of an appropriate private placement when a district has failed to offer their child a FAPE, it does not follow they may take advantage of deficiencies in the district's offered placement to obtain maximization of their child's potential at the expense of public funds, as such results do not achieve the purpose of the IDEA. To the contrary, "[r]eimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-
71 [emphasis added]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). To clarify a circuit court recently explained, "[e]quity surely would permit a reduction from full reimbursement if [a unilateral private placement] provides too much (services beyond required educational needs)" (C.B. v. Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist., 635 F.3d 1155, 1160 [9th Cir. 2011]). Similarly, "a finding that a particular private placement is appropriate under IDEA does not mean that all treatments received there are per se [reimbursable]; rather, reimbursement is permitted only for treatments that are related services as defined by the IDEA" (Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z., 580 F.3d 286, 301 [5th Cir. 2009]).
DOE OFFER OF FAPE FOR 2016-2017
DOE not present any IEP nor any evidence regarding the 2016-2017 school year.
DOE had “
.” (T 31)
DOE also indicated they have no objection to the Student placement at .
(T 31)
DOE does have an objection to the amount of tuition sought as relief by the Parent, though no evidence will be presented. (T 31)
If Parent is successful at hearing the DOE does not object to direct funding of tuition to . (T 52-53)
I find the DOE failed to offer a FAPE to the Student for the 2016-2107 school year.
PLACEMENT
DOE presented no opposition to any part of Parent evidence. DOE did state an objection to the amount of tuition sought. Objection related to calculating tuition considering some part as . (T 31)
includes and as .
(T 31, Ex K))
Parent detailed Student educational history and testified as to the appropriateness of . (T 44-48) Parent testified as to inability to directly pay tuition. (T 51-52)
witness described program in general (T 21-23 & 40), and specifically for the Student. (T 23-25, 43)
Student receives
. (T 25-26)
Witness described Student characteristics (T 26), needs (T 27-28), needs and progress(T 33-34), needs and progress (T 34-36), and and services to address them (T 36-37)
Witness testified that is appropriate for the Student: “
.” (T 37-38)
program information also is included in . (Ex F)
Student goals in also evidenced in
Education Plan. (Ex I)
I find the educational instruction at is especially designed to meet the unique needs of the student and is supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.
For the 2016-2017 school year I find offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs and such placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
I find equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. The parent cooperated and appeared at the requested IEP meeting (T 46), communicated her concerns to the DOE (Ex B & C), and in no way frustrated any attempt of DOE to offer a FAPE.
Parent notified DOE of intent to place Student at for the 2016-2017 school year. (Ex C)
Parent testified as to income and ability to pay. (T 50-52, Ex J)
For 2016 commissions are about . (T 51)
If Parent is successful at hearing the DOE does not object to direct funding of tuition to . (T 52-53)
Parent seeks direct funding, or prospective payment, of tuition for the DOE.
Parent has the burden of establishing their inability to pay for the student's private school tuition (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-004; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-130; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-
106; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-041). The parent provides a copy of three pages of his 2014 tax return, and testimony regarding ability to pay directly. (T 52-53)
DOE has no objection to direct funding nor has the DOE presented any evidence in opposition to Parent testimony. (T 52-53)
As discussed at hearing there is a portion of tuition to be allocated as
. (T 31, Ex K)
Tuition contract at for the of 2016-2017 School Year is entered as Exhibit D).
Tuition is set forth as . (Ex D 1)
schedule includes . Of this time
are ( ). (Ex E) This amounts to about .
Related Services are billed in the amount of for the .
(Ex D 3)
Total tuition, after removing .
Regular school year Tuition for tuition is set forth as . (Ex D 4)
School Year Related Services are billed in the amount of . (Ex D 6)
Regular School year schedule includes . Of this time instruction includes and which amounts to weekly, or
Total tuition, after removing is .
Total School Year Tuition to be funded: .
ORDER
1. The Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer, and failed to provide, the student with an appropriate program and placement and therefore, a FAPE has been denied the student, for the 2016-2017 school year.
2. The DOE shall pay directly the tuition due or to become due for the 20162017 school year.
3. Total amount of tuition to be reimbursed or directly funded is
.
4. DOE shall provide parent and with any required documentation and forms necessary to facilitate payment within ten days of the date of this order.
5. This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.
Dated: March 20, 2013
DANIEL AJELLO, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
DA:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
ENTERED 02/13/2017
A Due Process Complaint, 1/3/17, unspecified three pages
B Letter from Parent to School District, 6/2016, two pages
C Letter from Parent to School District, 7/7/17 (sic), three pages
D '16/'17 Enrollment Contract and addendum for
, 2016-2017, six pages
E '16/'17 Daily Schedules, 2016-2017, one page
F '16/'17 Program Description, ,
2016-2017, two pages
G Tuition Affidavit of Payment, 2/6/17, one page
H Attendance, 02/06/2017, one page
I '16/'17 Educational Plan, , 2016-2017, 13
pages
J 2014 U.S. Tax Return, 2014, three pages
ENTERED 02/27/2017
K '16/'17 Daily Schedule for Student, 2016-2017, one page
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NONE
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
ENTERED 02/13/2017
I Notice of Appointment to the Parties, 1/5/17, three pages