New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION - DOE DEFAULT & INQUEST

Case Number: 184710

NYS Identifier Number N/A Student’s Name: [“Confidential”]

Date of Birth: [“Confidential”]

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 05/04/20

Actual Record Close Date: 10/30/20

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney DOE 05/04/20 (T)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney DOE 05/04/20 (T)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 05/04/20 (T)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Mother PARENT 05/04/20 (T)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Associate Director PARENT 05/04/20 (T)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. Seq: EVIDENCE DESCRIPTION Date of # of Date Evidence Pages | Disclose __ | Demand for Due Process with email confirmation 07-01-19 10 04-27-20

B- |NYC DOE 2015 15 04-27-20

C 10-day Letter with email Confirmation 06-14-19 02 04-27-20

D__| The [School Name] School Enrollment Contract 04-05-19 03 04-27-20

E Parent Letter to CSE re NO IEP with fax confirmation 05-31-19 02 04-27-20

F The [School Name] School Behavior Reduction Plan June 2019 03 04-27-20

G_ | The [School Name] School Behavior Reduction Plan October 03 04-27-20

2019

H_ | The [School Name] School Affidavit 07-31-19 01 04-27-20

I The [School Name] School Speech and Language Progress December 05 04-27-20

Report 2019

J The [School Name] School Occupational Therapy Progress January 05 04-27-20

Report 2020

K_ | The [School Name] School Schedule 2019-2020 01 04-27-20

L___| The [School Name] School Program Description 2019-2020 01 04-27-20

M__ |} 2019 [Confidential] Tax Return 2019 03 04-27-20

N__ | 2019 [Confidential] Tax Return 2019 03 04-27-20

O [Confidential] Resume 2020 02 04-27-20

P| The [School Name] School IEP Progress Report 12-00-19 22 04-27-20

Q Closing Statement 06/05/20 12

***Parent’s exhibit “B” was not formally received in evidence.***

N/A N/A N/A IHO N/A

On July 29, 2019, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( “IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 and of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parents of a ( ) year old student attending a private school and the New York City - Department of Education (“DOE”) - District: , regarding the student’s special education program. I was appointed after the recusal of at least one other IHO. After having adjournments granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on May 4, 2020. A list of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

This case was initiated as the result of a written Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed by the student’s Parent through her attorney(s), [CONFIDENTIAL] and received at the Department of Education Impartial Hearing Office (“DOE-IHO”) on or about July 1, 2019. The DPC is carried under New York City (“NYC”) . Therein, the Parent alleges that the DOE has failed to provide the student with a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2019-2020 school year. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: (a) Reimbursement and/or funding for the tuition, costs, expenses and transportation for the student’s 12-month 2019-2020 school year at the private school;

and

(b) | Compensatory education for any and all educational services the student is entitled to that the DOE failed to provide, including his pendency entitlements.

The Parent request an “Order on Pendency because the DOE did not create an IEP for the student for the 2019-2020 school year. (T-7) The parties agree that the student was designated to receive special education services for the 12-month 2019-2020 school year and that no IEP was created for the student for tat year. (T-10-1)

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (1)

document in evidence. (T-7-8, 11 & 15 & D-1) The DOE did not defend “FAPE” and did not challenge the presumption in the law that the Parent has cooperated with the agency. (Id.) In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent called (1) witness to testify on her behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5|j|[3][xii][f] (P-H), and two witnesses that testified live. (T-19-41 & 60-92) The DOE crossed examined only two of the Parent's witnesses. (T-14-5, 41-50, 92-115 & P-H) The Parent also submitted (17) documents in evidence. The DOE did not object to the Parent's documents being received in evidence, with the exception of proposed Parent's Exhibit “B.” (T-14) In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent's case is incorporated in the decision below.

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION - DEFAULT & INQUEST

IDEA ensures that students with disabilities are afforded a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1400 & Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 [2005]) A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP. (20 U.S.C. 1401(8) & 141(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.13) The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. (Schaffer, 126 S.Ct. 528, 537)

The DOE may be required to reimburse Parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student, if the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dept.

of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985), Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2° Cir. 2005])

The first step is to determine whether the DOE offered to provide the student a FAPE. (Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2" Cir. 2000]) A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE complies with procedural requirements set forth in IDEA and (b) the IEP developed by the CSE through the procedures set forth in IDEA, is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Bd. Of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-7 [1982]) The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A), 34 C.F.R. § 300.550(b), 8 NYCRR §200.6(a)[1])

The Parent bears the burden of showing that the private school placement selected is appropriate. (SRO Nos.: 95-57, 94-29 & 93-34) The Parents must show that the private school placement offers an educational program that meets the student’s special education needs. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370 & SRO No. 94-20) The private school need not be approved by the state educational agency to provide instruction to children with disabilities. (Florence County School District Four et. al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). It is also not required that the private school employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (SRO No. 94-20)

Finally, the IHO must consider whether equitable considerations favor the Parents’ request for tuition reimbursement. State Review Officer (“SRO”) Decision 06-004 holds: Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 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"]). Such considerations "include the parties’ compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties’ positions, and like matters” (Wolfe _v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). With respect to equitable considerations, a parent may be denied tuition reimbursement upon a finding of a failure to cooperate with the CSE in the development of an IEP or if the parent's conduct precluded the CSE's ability to develop an appropriate IEP (Warren G. v. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 86 [3rd Cir. 1999]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-026). In the absence of evidence demonstrating that petitioners failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a_ claim of _ tuition reimbursement. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-049).

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.

(Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71, Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007] and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 at 192 [2d Cir.

2005]) “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, 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C]ii] and 34

C.F.R. § 300.148)

The DOE failed to call any witnesses to testify on its behalf, did not submit any documents in evidence, failed to file and serve an answer or serve a “Prior Written Notice” in this case, and did not even make an opening or a closing statement. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(e) & T-7-8, 11 & 15) “Prior Written Notice” means written statements developed in accordance with Section 200.5(a) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, and provided to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district proposes to or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student.

It is noted that silence in a responsive pleading is an admission, and a counterclaim in federal practice is compulsory in the answer or deemed waived. (See New York Practice, 4°" Edition §§223 & 224, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13(a) & Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N.Y.2d 105, 108, 271 N.Y.S.2d 976, 218 N.E.2d 688, 690 [1966])

The DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement.

(See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]) Here, the DOE did not proffer any evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE. (Supra) This amounts to a concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE. As previously noted, the DOE did not serve and file an answer in the case, nor did the agency serve the Parent with “Prior Written Notice’, which would provide either a denial of the Parent’s allegation, or some explanation for the agency’s failure to provide a FAPE. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)[e])

It would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are rife with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined. While compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain _v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner...the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing,_ Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D.

(1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative law judge (‘ALJ’) properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer's fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer’s president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1*' Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity “to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3).” (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179)

However, here the DOE did not present a case-in-chief and did not controvert the documentary evidence submitted by the Parent. (Supra) The credibility of the documentary evidence was not rebutted by the agency and the documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find the documentary and testamentary evidence submitted by the Parent in this case to be credible and uncontroverted in this case.

As noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parent meets her burden under Schaffer _v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place'|) When, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the hearing, the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an “inquest” as to the appropriate relief.

The DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law. New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005]. It is not an IHO's responsibility to craft the DOE’s position regarding the primary issue in the case, for the denial of FAPE. The undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief he has requested.

I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent's claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65)

Where sought as relief, a private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and 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 and 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. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14)

The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-105) Parents also need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See 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." (See 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"])

There is a request for compensatory educational services in this case and an IHO cannot determine the amount of compensatory education that a student requires unless the record provides him with sufficient “insight about the precise types of education services the student needs to progress.” (Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008] citing Branham v. District_of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005]) Pertinent findings to enable an IHO to tailor the ultimate award to the student's unique needs should include the nature and severity of the student's disability, the student's specialized educational needs, the link between those needs and the services requested, and the student’s current educational abilities. (See Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005], see also Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008]) The Parent has the burden of “propos|[ing] a well-articulated plan that reflects the student’s current education abilities and needs and is supported by the record.” (See Phillips v. District of Columbia, 2010 WL 3563068, at *6, 55 IDELR 101 [D.D.C. Sept.

13, 2010] quoting Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt ( “Nesbitt II"), 583 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172, 51 IDELR 125 [D.D.C. 2008])

State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. (See 8 NYCRR 200.5{j][5][v])

Shaffer decision of the Supreme Court of the United States issued on November 14, 2005, held as follows:

“We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is, therefore affirmed.” (Supra, Ill, ]2) (See_Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005] (emphasis added)

The party who defaults in concedes only liability and not the amount of “damages.” (See CPLR § 3215, First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Classic Collateral Corp., 44 A.D.2d 868, 355 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1974), James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 (1967), McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347, 169 N.E. 605 (1930) The DOE’s default constitutes an admission of liability, but not of damages, which remains the Parent’s burden to prove. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 & City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 at 128 [2d Cir. 201 1])

PARENT’S REQUEST FOR AN “ORDER ON PENDENCY” & MOOTNESS

The Parent request an “Order on Pendency” pursuant to the student’s IEP dated February 2, 2015, which include: (a) the student’s 6:1:3 placement at his previous private school; (b) 3x30 individual speech therapy sessions per week; and (c) transportation to and from school, all as part of a twelve-month school year. (See DPC)

Whereas the Parent’s assertion that “pendency” lies in the student's IEP dated February 2, 2015 in conjunction with the student's operative placement at the time that pendency was invoked, which is the student’s current private school, and that “pendency” is retroactive to July 1, 2019, the date that the Parent filed the due process complaint is undisputed; and Whereas “pendency” as the undisputed fact covers the entirety of the student's 12-month 2019-2020 school year in the relief sought and, therefore, the matter has been rendered moot by this “Order on Pendency”; and Whereas I find that the case had been rendered moot by the Parent’s request for and right to “pendency” pursuant to the undisputed facts, the Parent having received, or being entitled to receive, all of the payments she is entitled to pursuant to the undisputed facts and the a hearing on the merits rendered a nullity; and this “Order of Dismissal - Pendency & Mootness” having been determined as being in the best interest of both parties; and Whereas in Burlington the question was whether it was appropriate to reimburse parents retroactively for private-school tuition based on the merits of their claim - i.e., because the school district's IEP was inadequate and the private-school placement was appropriate - and here the basis for retroactive reimbursement is based on pendency; and Whereas in both cases, however, the Parents were due reimbursement that had been denied them by the simple passage of time, not because they were not entitled, under the IDEA, to the relief they sought; and Whereas here the argument for retroactive reimbursement is even stronger here than in Burlington because in that case there was apparently no delay based on a statutory time limit, as there is here; and Whereas in any event, here, as in Burlington, "such relief as the court determines is appropriate,” within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)(iii), "Means that equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief." 471 U.S. at 374, 105 S.Ct. 1996. (See Mackey v. Bd. of Educ., 386 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004), and Bd. of Educ.

v. O'Shea, 353 F.Supp.2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); and Whereas current prevailing case law prohibits a district from recouping payments made pursuant to pendency. (See New York City Dep't of Educ. v. $.S., 2010 WL 983719, at “11 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010]); and Whereas in this case the Parent has now received, or is entitled to receive under pendency all of the relief she sought at the impartial hearing and that the 12-month 2019-2020 school year at issue has expired, which raises the question of whether the instant matter has been rendered moot by the passage of time; and Whereas upon careful consideration of the evidence in the hearing record I find that the DOE’s default in this case constitutes a tacit concession that it has denied the student a FAPE, that regardless of the merits of a decision concerning whether the DOE offered the student a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year, no further meaningful relief may be granted to the Parent because they has received all of the relief sought pursuant to “pendency”, and thus, the Parent's case has now been rendered moot; and Whereas careful consideration of the District Court's decision rendered in V.S., 2011 WL 3273922, as discussed further below, does not compel a different result; and Whereas the dispute between the parties must at all stages be “real and live,” and not “academic,” or it risks becoming moot. (See Lillbask v. State of Conn. Dep’t of Educ., 397 F.3d 77, 84-85 (2 Cir. 2005), Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 (W.D.N.Y. 2008), J.N. v. Depew Union Free Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 4501940, at *3-*4 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008), see also, Chenier v. Richard W., 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832 (1993), Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714 (1980) and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas in general, cases dealing with issues such as desired changes in IEPs, specific placements, and implementation disputes may become moot at the end of the school year because no meaningful relief can be granted. (See, e.g., SRO Nos. 06-044, 05-058, 04-027, 00-037, 00-016 & 96-37); and Whereas administrative decisions rendered in cases concerning such issues arising out of school years that have since expired may no longer appropriately address the current needs of the student. (See Daniel R.R. v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 874 F.2d 1036, 1040 (5th Cir. 1989) and SRO Nos. 07-139, 07-028, 06-070 & 04-007); and Whereas an exception provides that a claim may not be moot despite the end of a school year for which the student’s IEP was written, if the conduct complained of is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” (See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318-23 (1988), Lillbask, 397 F.3d at 84-85, Daniel R.R., 874 F.2d at 1040 and SRO No. 04-038); and Whereas the exception applies only in limited situations (see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983) and is severely circumscribed. (See Knaust v. City of Kingston, 157 F.3d 86, 88 (2 Cir. 1998); and Whereas first, it must be apparent that “the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.” (See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) see Knaust, 157 F.3d at 88 and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas second, controversies are “capable of repetition” when there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. (See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975), Hearst Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 714-15 and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas to create a reasonable expectation of recurrence, repetition must be more than theoretically possible. (See Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482, Russman v. Bd. Of Educ., 260 F.3d 114, 120 (2 Cir. 2001) and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas mere speculation that the parties will be involved in a dispute over the same issue does not rise to the level of a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability of recurrence. (See Russman, 260 F.3d at 120 and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas “mootness” may be raised at any stage of litigation. (In re Kurtzman, 194 F.3d 54, 58 (2"¢ Cir. 1999) and SRO No. 07-139); and Whereas in this case, there is no longer any live controversy relating to the parties’ dispute over the placement or program offered by the DOE for the 2019-2020 school year, because even if a determination on the merits demonstrated that the DOE did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year, in this instance, it would have no actual effect on the parties because the 2019-2020 school year expired on June 26, 2020, and the student remained entitled to his pendency placement funded by the DOE through the conclusion of the administrative due process; and Whereas accordingly, the Parents’ claims for the 2019-2020 school year need not be further addressed here because an IHO is not required to make a determination that is academic or will have no actual impact upon the parties. (See SRO Nos. 11-085, 09-077, 09-065, 08-104, 08-044, 07-077, 06-044, 04-006, 02-086, 02-011 & 97-64); and Whereas concerning the District Court’s decision in V.S. (2011 WL 3273922), the court in that case held that in SRO No. 10-041, the SRO correctly determined that the Parents’ request for funding for the school year that was the subject of that appeal was no longer at issue where the student was educated at public expense at a private school chosen by the Parents for the duration of the school year pursuant to a pendency order. (See V.S., 2011 WL 3273922, at *9); and Whereas noting that a decision in favor of the district in that matter would not affect its obligation to pay the costs of the student’s private school tuition, the Court nevertheless determined that the district sought redress regarding the collateral issue of the student's ongoing pendency placement for future proceedings and that had a decision been rendered by a SRO on the merits, it would have affected the student's placement. (Id.); and Whereas after careful consideration and for several reasons discussed below, | respectfully decline to adopt the reasoning as set forth in V.S., because first, the sole reason that the District Court in V.S. held that SRO No. 10-041, was not moot was because the parties required resolution of the merits of their dispute to establish the student’s pendency placement in future proceedings. (See V.S., 2011 WL 3273922, at *10) However, this rationale regarding future pendency may be read so broadly as to apply to virtually any and all IDEA proceedings involving the educational placement or services to be provided to a student, and other courts in New York have not adopted this broad approach. (See Bd. of Educ. v. O'Shea, 353 F.Supp.2d 449, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(determining the matter was moot and declining to resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute when the pendency provision provided an independent basis for doing so) see also Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2TM Cir.

2002)(ruling that the pendency provision formed a basis for awarding relief without addressing the merits of the parties’ dispute), Bd. of Educ. v. Schutz, 290 F.3d 476, 484 (2 Cir. 2002)(rejecting the district's argument that a dispute must be resolved on the merits rather than on the basis of the pendency provision), Patskin, 583 F. Supp. 2d at 428-29 (holding that the matter was moot where the school year at issue had passed, and stating that the relevant controversy was whether the IEP that the student was provided with was an appropriate placement and that there was no reasonable expectation that the student would be subjected to that particular IEP again), M.S. v.

New_York City Dep't of Educ., 734 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273, 278-80 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2010)(dismissing the case as moot and noting that the parents were receiving full compensation for their private school expenditures and that the proceeding was brought to obtain legal fees), J.N., 2008 WL 4501940, at *3-*4 (upholding a SRO’s determination that the case was moot), Bd. of Educ. v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 468-69 (7th Cir

1996)(holding that it was not necessary to determine which party would prevail on the merits when the stay put provision controlled for the duration of the dispute and the proposed public school IEP was no longer applicable to the student), see also New York City Dep't of Educ. v. S.S., 2010 WL 983719 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010]); and Whereas the Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected this rationale, holding that the stay put provision cannot be relied upon as the basis for a live controversy when the issue of liability on the substantive issues has been rendered moot. (See Marcus I. v. Dep't of Educ., 2011 WL 1979502, at *1 (9th Cir. May 23, 2011)(explaining that stay put provision 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j/) is designed to allow a student to remain in an educational institution pending litigation, but does not guarantee a student the right to remain in any particular institution because the right to a stay put placement that stems from a given adjudicatory proceeding lapses once the proceeding has concluded); and Whereas second, we must be concerned with adjudicating rights unnecessarily, particularly when it will not affect the claims that a party alleged at the outset of the due process proceeding and especially under a statutory scheme like the IDEA, which envisions that Parents and Districts will continue to convene on at least an annual basis to review a student's current IEP or educational placement, share their concerns with one another, and cooperatively and affirmatively engage in efforts to develop a new appropriate plan designed to offer the student a FAPE in the public schools. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][4][A], 34 C.F.R. § 300.324[b][1][i], see also Educ. Law § 4402[2] and 8 NYCRR 200.4[f]) and this process usually works best when it is as free as possible from acrimonious relationships that often develop after continued litigation; and Whereas third, the automatic nature of the pendency provision set forth in the IDEA (see Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904, 906 (2 Cir. 1982), Wagner v. Bd. of Educ., 335 F.3d 297, 301 (4 Cir. 2003), Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3

Cir. 1996), and if necessary, the speed with which parties may obtain State-level pendency placement reviews on an interlocutory basis under New York's regulatory scheme (see 8 NYCRR 279.10[d]) strongly diminishes the need to establish future pendency placements for future school years and such determinations are better left until the proceedings under which the right arises are commenced and the issue of the student's pendency placement is actually in dispute; and Whereas, the Court's comment that a decision on the merits in V.S. would be useful (2011 WL 3273922, at *10), raises a concern that the decision has the effect of removing the much needed discretion of administrative hearing officers to focus on both fairly and efficiently resolving disputes while retaining the discretion of how best to allocate their adjudicative resources to address ever growing dockets; and Whereas for the forgoing reasons, | decline to find that the Parents’ claims for the 2019-2020 school year continues to be a live controversy, because I find that the matter has been rendered moot by the passage of time and that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in this case because the matter is not capable of repetition and would not evade review; and Whereas while the Parents may elect to challenge the IEP developed for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years and seek tuition reimbursement for the student at his private school for those school years in a subsequent due process proceeding, the issues presented in such a claim could be different as the placement recommended for the 2019-2020 school year; and Whereas each year the elements of a tuition reimbursement claim must be analyzed separately. (See Mrs. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 67 (2TM Cir.

2000)(examining the prongs of the Burlington/Carter test separately for each school year at issue), Snyder v. Montgomery County Pub. Schs., 2009 WL 3246579, *9-*10 (D.Md. Sept. 29, 2009), Omidian v. Bd. of Educ., 2009 WL 904077, at *21-*26 (N.D.N.Y.

Mar. 31 2009)(analyzing each year of a multi-year tuition reimbursement claim separately), Student_X_ v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) and SRO Nos. 09-071 & 09-055) and, accordingly, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here as I do not find this matter to be capable of repetition yet evading review. (See Honig, 484 U.S. at 318-23, Lillbask, 397 F.3d at 84-85, Daniel R.R., 874 F.2d at 1040 and SRO 04-038); and Whereas additionally, the Mayor's policy announced on June 24, 2014 that was implemented September 1, 2014 and includes the following changes in New York City:

*« Expedite Decisions: Where settlement is appropriate, DOE will seek settlement within (15) days of receiving notice of parent intent to unilaterally place their child in a school. « Reduce Extended Legal Battles: The DOE will refrain from re-litigating settled or decided cases, unless there is a change in the IEP placement recommendation. The DOE will avoid unnecessary litigation in cases where the agency is unable to offer a placement, or when a child is about to enter the final grade of a school.

* Reduce Paperwork: Instead of requiring parents to submit full documentation every year, the DOE will only require that paperwork every three years, allowing for income eligibility updates to be made each year, as needed.

* Expedite Payments: DOE will make tuition payments on a monthly basis when required by a program, and it will provide a payment schedule to parents following any settlement. Once parents win a claim for tuition reimbursement, the DOE will pay the tuition while the DOE appeals that decision to a higher level of review; and Whereas these changes make it even more less than likely that this matter is capable of repetition that may evade review (supra); and Whereas it is also important to note that as stated above, case law prohibits the DOE from recouping payments made pursuant to pendency. (See New York City Dep't of Educ. v. $.S., 2010 WL 983719, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010]); and Whereas on May 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeal for the 2" Circuit, in Case Nos.: No. 19-1662-cv and 19-1813-cv, in deciding whether Parents who unilaterally enroll their child in a new private school and challenge the adequacy of the child’s IEP are entitled to public funding for the new school during the pendency of the IEP dispute, on the basis that the educational program being offered at the new school is substantially similar to the program that was last agreed upon by the Parents and the school district and was offered at the previous school, on a de novo review, held that such Parents are not entitled to public funding because it is the school district, not the Parents, who has the authority to decide how a child’s last agreed-upon educational program is to be provided at public expense during the pendency of the child’s IEP dispute; and Whereas the Court stated that the IDEA does not require the City to fund such a unilateral placement during the pendency of their IEP dispute and that Parents unilaterally place their children the Parents do so at their own financial risk; and Whereas the Court reaffirmed that the IDEA does not authorize a school district to recoup payments made for educational services pursuant to the stay put provision; and Whereas the Court further stated that “then-current educational placement” in the stay-put provision typically refers to the child’s last agreed-upon educational program before the Parent requested a due process hearing to challenge the child’s IEP, and that under the IDEA, an initial placement is made by the school district upon the consent of the Parent, but a child’s educational placement (or program) may be changed if, for example, the school district and the Parents agree on what the new placement should be, or if an IHO or SRO finds the parents’ new placement to be appropriate by adjudicating the IEP dispute in the Parents’ favor, and the school district chooses not to appeal the decision; and Whereas, accordingly, implicit in the concept of “educational placement” in the stay-put provision (i.e., a pendency placement) is the idea that the Parents and the school district must agree either expressly or as impliedly by law to a child’s educational program; and Whereas the Court further stated that the stay-put provision does not guarantee a child with a disability “the right to remain in the exact same school with the exact same service providers while his administrative and judicial proceedings are pending.

Instead, it guarantees only the same general level and type of services that the . . . child was receiving.’; and Whereas it is the City, not the Parents, that is authorized to decide how (and where) the Students’ pendency services are to be provided; and Whereas the school district has a preexisting and independent authority to determine how to provide the most-recently-agreed-upon educational program. “i]t is up to the school district,” not the Parent, “to decide how to provide that educational program [until the IEP dispute is resolved], so long as the decision is made in good faith.” (Citing T.M., 752 F.3d at 171 (citing Concerned Parents, 629 F.2d at 756); and Whereas the Court goes on to state that if a Parent disagrees with a school district's decision on how to provide a child’s educational program, the Parent has at least three options under the IDEA: (1) The Parent can argue that the school district's decision unilaterally modifies the student's pendency placement and the parent could invoke the stay-put provision to prevent the school district from doing so; (2) The Parent can determine that the agreed-upon educational program would be better provided somewhere else and thus seek to persuade the school district to pay for the program's new services on a pendency basis; or (3) The Parent can determine that the program would be better provided somewhere else, enroll the child in a new school, and then seek retroactive reimbursement from the school district after the IEP dispute is resolved; and Whereas what the Parent cannot do is determine that the child’s pendency placement would be better provided somewhere else, enroll the child in a new school, and then invoke the stay-put provision to force the school district to pay for the new school’s services on a pendency basis; and Whereas to hold otherwise would turn the stay-put provision on its head, by effectively eliminating the school district's authority to determine how pendency services should be provided; and Whereas, however, the Court specifically did not consider, much less resolve, any question presented where the school providing the child’s pendency services is no longer available and the school district either refuses or fails to provide pendency services to the child; and Whereas in his case, there is no evidence that the DOE has presented indicating that the student’s placement at his previous private school under “pendency” is still available, or that the DOE has honored the Parent's request for “pendency” or viably opposed the same; and Whereas, nevertheless, the Court noted that it makes sense that it is the party generally responsible for paying a student's agreed-upon educational program, generally the City - who determines how the pendency services are to be provided.

That is so for two reasons: (i) public funding for pendency services can never be recouped; and (ii) the cost of educational services in schools can vary dramatically; and Whereas the basis for “pendency” is stated to be the student’s “operative placement” at the time when the IEP proceedings were initiated, the Court held that argument fails for all of the reasons stated above; and Whereas a Parent cannot unilaterally transfer his or her child and subsequently initiate an IEP dispute to argue that the new school’s services must be funded on a pendency basis. That argument effectively renders the stay-put provision meaningless by denying any interest of a school district in resolving how the student’s agreed-upon educational program must be provided and funded; and Whereas the Court further noted that it bears recalling that the term “operative placement” has its origin in cases where the school district attempts to move the child to a new school without the Parents’ consent, or where there is no previously implemented IEP so that the current placement provided by the school district is considered to be the pendency placement for purposes of the stay-put provision; and Whereas this IHO having determined that this “Order of Dismissal - Pendency & Mootness’” is supported by the record and is being made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily; and The parties’ oral arguments, discussions, concessions, testamentary and documentary evidence and this order having been recorded; Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that pursuant to the pendency provisions under the IDEA, upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of service having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student's receipt of all of the services detailed in his IEP dated February 2, 2015, which include: (a) the student’s 6:1:3 placement at his present private school; (b) 3x30 individual speech therapy sessions per week; and (c) transportation to and from school, all as part of a twelve-month school year, as it constitutes the student's operative placement at the time that pendency was invoked, and that “pendency” is retroactive to July 1, 2019, the date that the Parent filed the DPC and continues throughout the entirety of the student’ 12-month 2019-2020 school ending on June 26, 2020; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of the student’s IEP dated February 2, 2015 shall accompany this order for reference; and it is further

ORDERED that this case has been rendered “moot” pursuant to the “pendency” provisions of the IDEA, the undisputed facts cited above and the parties’ “pendency agreement’ awarding the Parent “pendency” that is retroactive to the date the Parent filed her DPC, said payments having been already made and received by the Parents or there being an undisputed right on behalf of the Parents to receive said payments and said payments not being recoupable by the DOE and required upon the DOE’s receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of said services having been rendered, requiring the DOE to reimburse the Parent for the cost of the student’s receipt of all of the placements and services ordered in, for the entirety of the student's 2019-2020 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall immediately re-evaluate the student in all areas of his suspected disabilities not evaluated within the last two years; and it is further

ORDERED that upon completion of the student’s evaluations, the CSE shall forthwith reconvene to produce a new IEP for the student that considers all of the student's available evaluations and any related information and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2020-2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parents not addressed by this “Order on Pendency, Mootness & Dismissal” is found to be either resolved by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

DATED: November 5, 2020

New York, New York Edgar De Leon - IHO

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov. (Rev. 07/09/20)