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: 167383
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: August 31, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: February 5, 2019
Hearing Officer: James Walsh, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
AUGUST 31, 2017
Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of SS, PA ttorneys Parent
For the Parents:
District and Department of Education Department of Education
Representative
The Matter of .. (hereinafter referred to as “Student’), came before me for determination, in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1412 et seq. on August 31, 2017, for the singular purpose of determining the Pendency program to which Student is entitled to receive pending the completion of this administrative hearing. The undersigned had been appointed by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office as the Impartial Hearing Officer authorized to preside over this matter by notice dated July 14, 2017.
The proceeding was initiated by correspondence filed on behalf of Parents by the Law Office of i’, LLP, dated July 6, 2017, and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date. The Due Process Complaint (Exhibit A) alleged that District’s failed to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education for the 2017-2018 school year. More specifically, the Complaint alleged that District’s had failed to prepare an Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) for Student or proffer any specific placement to Student for the 2017-2018 school year. As a Proposed Remedy, Parents’ Complaint sought an Order requiring the New York City Department of Education to fund Student’s unilateral placement at the for the 2017-2018 school year and provide appropriate services (Exhibit A).
Parents’ Due Process Complaint also sought Pendency. In accordance with such request, a Pendency Hearing was conducted on August 31, 2017. On September 1, 2017, I issued an Interim Order on Pendency (I.H.O. Exhibit I) ordering the District and the New York City Department of Education to provide Student with a twelve-month program and placement at the , together with special education transportation to and from the , at District and Department expense. Such Interim Order was made retroactive to July 6, 2017.
A hearing to consider the merits of Parents’ Complaint was scheduled to be conducted on July 15, 2018. However, such hearing date was cancelled at the specific request of Parents’ attorneys, who requested additional time to seek settlement. No further hearings were thereafter scheduled.
The 2017-2018 school year has long concluded. This matter remains open. However, I find, at this time, that there is no purpose in conducting a hearing or reviewing the correctness of the actions of or the stated positions of the Parent, as there is no relief that I could afford to Parents in a Decision that Parents have not already obtained through the provisions of my Interim Order on Pendency. Parents had sought to compel the Department of Education to fund Student’s placement and program at the for the 2017-2018 school year, together with providing Student with Special Education transportation. Parents have, through the provisions of the Interim Order on Pendency, received such.
It is my finding and determination that all of the issues raised by Parents in their Due Process Complaint are now moot. Mootness can only successfully be avoided where retrospective relief is sought (Board of Education of the City of New York, 26 IDELR 1326; Neshaminy School District v. Karla B., 25 IDELR 725 [E.D. Pa 1997]. To paraphrase the State Review Officer who decided Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-9:
“An appeal may be found to be moot, if no meaningful relief could be provided and there is no basis for believing that the dispute between the parties will continue.”
It is, therefore, my Determination and Conclusion of Law that all of the issues presented in this proceeding are moot and that there is no valid reason to continue this matter.
ORDER
Based upon the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Parents’ Due Process Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.
Dated: February 26, 2019 James P. Walshe mu
JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
JW:mv
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. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
A. No.: #of Pages Description: Offered by: 7 Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, Parents dated 7-6-17
B. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s on 5-25-16 24 pages Parents
C. Stipulation of Settlement, dated 5-2-17 5 pages Parents
7 OTHER DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD
I. No.: #of Pages Description: Offered by: Interim Order on Pendency by I.H.O. James THO Walsh, dated 9-1-17 1 page Parents