Impartial Hearing Decision

COVER SHEET

Case Number 220808

Date Requested November 3, 2021

Hearing Officer Sharyn Finkelstein

Student’s Name [REDACTED]

Date of Birth [REDACTED]

District [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By Parent

Date of Hearing January 18, 2022

April 1, 2022

May 19, 2022

July 13, 2022

October 14, 2022

October 28, 2022

Hearing Officer Sharyn Finkelstein Esq.

Record Close December 16, 2022

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 18, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] District representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 1, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MAY 19, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

[REDACTED] Parent

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JULY 13, 2022

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

[REDACTED] Parent

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 14, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 28, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

[REDACTED] Director of [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1), concerning the special education of [REDACTED] (“Student”) for the 2019-2020 school year through August 16, 2020.

The parties moved to extend the compliance date on several occasions for witness availability, change in DOE representation, personal emergencies of parties and submission of closing briefs. In considering the requests. I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need for the extensions was greater than any delay in the resolution in this matter.

Attached is a list of persons who attended the hearing and evidence that was submitted. The record was closed on December 16, 2022 upon receipt of closing briefs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CASE

The Department of Education (DOE) was represented by their attorney [REDACTED] for the initial hearing dates. He had made a motion to dismiss and submitted a brief. (Exhibit 42) He appeared at the hearings that addressed the issue of residency. Evidence was submitted and a witness was presented. [REDACTED] appeared at the hearing which addressed the issue of FAPE. They did not submit any witnesses or additional evidence. They submitted a closing brief. (IHO Exhibit 1)

It is their position that jurisdiction should not be an issue before an IHO. It is their position that Student was not a resident of [REDACTED] for the period in question. They maintain that the unilateral placement at [REDACTED] was inappropriate. They argue that the equities favor the DOE. It is their position that the requested relief should be denied in its entirety.

PARENTS’ CASE

The Parents were represented by their attorney [REDACTED] . It is their position that Parents and Student were residents of [REDACTED] at the relevant time period. It is their position that residency is properly determined by an IHO in this matter. (Exhibit Y) It is their position that DOE failed to provide a FAPE to Student during the 2019-2020 and two months in the summer of 2020 school year. They maintain that [REDACTED] was appropriate. It is their position that the equities favor Parents. It is their position that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for Student’s attendance at the [REDACTED]during the 2019-2020 and two summer months in 2020. They submitted evidence and produced several witnesses. They submitted a closing brief. (IHO Exhibit 2)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Parents had filed a due process complaint on or about March 20, for the 2019-2020 school year. (DPC 193165)

On February 11, 2020 a CSE meeting had been held and an IEP was developed. Student was classified with Emotional Disturbance. (Exhibit 1)

Parents expressed concern over the recommendation of a [REDACTED] school. (Tr. 459)

Parent did not receive a school placement. (Tr. 460)

Parent signed a contract with [REDACTED] on October 16, 2019. (Exhibit Q) The cost was $12,000 a month. (Tr. 462)

On June 22, 2020 Parents submitted a 10-day notice of their intention to place Student at [REDACTED].

On or about February 16, 2021, the Department of Education (DOE) determined that Student and Parents were not [REDACTED] residents and determined Student was not eligible for special education in [REDACTED] as of October 18, 2019. (Exhibit 17)

In March 2021, Parents withdrew their complaint and appealed the DOE’s residency determination to the New York State Education Department and Commissioner (NYSED)

On August 30, 2021 the Commissioner dismissed the appeal as moot. Student had graduated on August 16, 2020. The Commissioner noted that NYCRR 100.2 (y) (4) does not permit the Department to make residency determinations with retroactive effect.

Parent refiled a request for tuition on November 3, 2021 based on denial of FAPE for the 2019-2020 and a portion of the 2020-2021 school year. (Exhibit X)

DOE made a motion to dismiss. Parties submitted briefs in support of their position. (Exhibits 42 and Exhibit Y)

MOTION TO DISMISS

DOE argues that if a parent wants to challenge the District’s residency determination, they must appeal the District determination to the NYSED Commissioner. It is their position that an IHO does not have authority over this matter.

8 NY-CRR 100.2(y)(6)(iv) states the Parents need to appeal a District’s residency determination to the NYSED Commissioner and not in front of an IHO.

They argue that if Parents had an issue with the NYSED Commissioner’s decision they had to appeal the NYSED Commissioner’s decision in [REDACTED] court in an Article 78 proceeding.

It is their position that Parents cannot disagree with the NYSED Commissioner’s decision and ask the IHO to interpret it and rule against it.

It is the Parent’s position that they are not appealing the decision. They agree that the Commissioner’s decision is correct. Student had already graduated and there was no live controversy. They point out that DOE only informed Parents of the residency dispute six months after Student had graduated. There was no live controversy.

They point out that there is a live controversy regarding the claim of denial of FAPE to Student for the 2019-2020 and the summer portion of the 2020 school year. It is their position that the residency issue is intertwined with the Student’s right to a FAPE.

New York State Education Law Section 4404 states that an impartial hearing officer can make a determination on residency when it is in conjunction with an IDEA proceeding.

Parent argues that a Student’s residency is a threshold matter that determines whether a district has a duty to provide a FAPE.

It is undisputed that the Commissioner only decides matters in actual controversy. Parent argues that it was impossible to have appealed the decision to the Commissioner in a timely manner because the Parent had no knowledge of the controversy when Student was in school.

I find that Parents should be entitled to a hearing on the alleged denials of FAPE. I find that Parents, through no fault of theirs, had no avenue to appeal the DOE’s finding with respect to residency. I find that in this instance IHO has to determine residency in order to resolve the controversy that does still exist.

DOE’s motion to dismiss is denied. Parties were informed of my decision prior to the beginning of the case. At the conclusion of the hearing, I specifically told Parties not to include this issue in their closing briefs. Any new arguments presented in closing were not considered.

RESIDENCY

“Residence” for purposes of Education Law §3202 is established by one’s physical presence as an inhabitant within the district and intent to reside in the district. Longwood Cent. School Dist. v. Springs Union Free School Dist., 1 NY3d 385; Appeal of Naab, 48 Ed Dept Rep 484, Decision No. 15,924. A child’s residence is presumed to be that of his or her parents or legal guardians. Catlin v. Sobol, 155 AD2d 24, revd on other grounds, 77 NY2d 552 (1991); Appeal of Polynice, 48 Ed Dept Rep 490, Decision No. 15,927. There must be a present, definite, and honest purpose to give up the old and take up the new place as the domicile of the person whose status is under consideration. Matter of Newcomb, 192 N.Y. 238, 251-52 (N.Y. 1908).

The Parents position is that the DOE did not follow proper procedures for challenging residency. They argue that Parents were [REDACTED] residents at the relevant times.

DOE argues that Parents were residents of [REDACTED] during the relevant time.

Both Parties submitted documentation in support of their position. DOE submits various documents including items that were mailed to [REDACTED], (Exhibit 6) various statements made by Student during psychological assessment and evaluation, (Exhibit 8, 9) and an enrollment contract indicating [REDACTED] as the primary residence. (Exhibit 11)

Parent submitted various documents including a Con Edison bill and maintenance bill. (Exhibit 6, Tr. 296) Parent points out in their closing that documents pertaining to residency were reviewed including proof of address during the social history. It is undisputed that there was no challenge to those documents at that time. (Tr. 297)

The issue is somewhat complicated because Parents owned a house in [REDACTED] as well as an apartment in [REDACTED] during the relevant period of time.

Parents had purchased the apartment located at [REDACTED] around September 15, 2018 and began residing at that location full time in December 2018. . (Tr. 173) Student resided with Parents during the summer and school breaks. (Tr. 174)

Father explained that he continued to receive mail at [REDACTED] during the time he resided in [REDACTED] because of business. All his rental properties are in [REDACTED] and tenants drop off checks in the mailbox. (Tr. 298)

Each Parent testified as to their life in [REDACTED]. There was evidence of credit cards submitted indicating grocery receipts, restaurants, veterinarian visits, commutation expenses, dry cleaners. and therapists, I find that these are evidence of daily life in New York City. (Exhibit F)

Parent testified that as of March 2020, they stopped residing in [REDACTED]. They began to reside at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. He explained that his company required him to work remotely and he was working out of [REDACTED]. In between March 20, 2020 and when they sold the apartment, there “were times where went into the apartment to spend time. “ (Tr. 183)

Parent explained that they resided in [REDACTED] for safety reasons during COVID. (Tr. 188)

I find that Parents have established residency in [REDACTED] up until March 20, 2020. Family never resided in [REDACTED] after that point in time. Father testified that it was their intent to return, however, they never did reside in [REDACTED] after that date. I find that at some point after March 20,2020 Parents’ intent to return to [REDACTED], other than for occasional visits, changed. Parent provided no testimony as to when their intent to return to [REDACTED] changed. I find that Parents cannot establish residency after March 20, 2020.

In order to have a complete record I will address all periods of time that Student was at [REDACTED].

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Student had been diagnosed with (Exhibit 8) ADHD, depressive disorder and anxiety.

During ninth grade, Student attended [REDACTED] School. His older brother attended the same school and Student did very well. (Tr. 447)

Student returned to [REDACTED] during grade ten. His brother no longer attended the school. Student became anxious and spoke about suicide. He was depressed all of the time. (Tr. 446-447)

Student attended his [REDACTED] year of [REDACTED] at [REDACTED], a boarding school. He had a complete breakdown and came home for ten days.

Student went back to school and began self-medicating. At the end of the year, he had a complete breakdown and threatened suicide (Tr 450)

Student finished his [REDACTED] year in [REDACTED]. (Tr. 215).

Student’s therapist and psychiatrist recommended [REDACTED] program.

Student attended [REDACTED] in [REDACTED] from June 5, 2019 through August 27, 2019. (Exhibit 9) . Parent filed a due process complaint to obtain tuition reimbursement for Student’s attendance at [REDACTED] for the 2019-2020 and a portion of the 2020-2021 school year.

All other relevant facts have been addressed in prior sections of the decision.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is well-established that a district may be required to pay for private educational services for a student with a disability, if the services offered by the DOE are inadequate or inappropriate, the nonpublic school is appropriate to meet the student’s unique educational needs, and there is no equitable bar to recovery. Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 114 S. Ct. 361 (1993); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2).

The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that students with disabilities have a free, appropriate public education that emphasizes services designed to meet their unique needs, and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. 20 USC 1400(d)(l)(A)-(B).

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the Department complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (f) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; The IDEA requires that the CSE include not less than one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment) and not less than one special education teacher, or where appropriate not less than one special education provider of such child (20 U.S.C.§ 1414[d][1][B).

Not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate and result in the denial of a FAPE. The procedural error must either 1) impeded the student’s right to a free and appropriate public education, 2) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free and appropriate education, or 3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 210093, at *2 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2007]). Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007.

The appropriate education mandated by the IDEA does not require states to “maximize the potential of handicapped children”. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Rowley), An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression” Id. (citing Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. 118 F. 3d 245 248 (3d 245, 248, (3d Cir. 1997).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that parents seeking tuition reimbursement for unilateral placement have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. Educ. Law 44049l09c); M.P.G. v. New York City Department of Education (SDNY 2010).

The Parent must establish that the proposed parental placement is appropriate under the IDEA, i.e., that the private school is offering an instructional program that meets the child’s special education needs. The fact that the facility selected by the Parent to provide special educational services to the child is not State approved as a school for children with disabilities is not dispositive of the Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement. (Florence County School District Four v. Carter by Carter. 114 S.Ct. 361[1993]). The parent must prove that the student will receive an appropriate educational benefit from the program. The Second Circuit framed the legal standard for the second prong in Frank G. v. Board of Education 459 F. 3d 356 (2d Cir.

2006) and Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District. 489 F.3d 105 (2d. Cir. 2007). Under Frank G the Court held that “to qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, Parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize the student’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handclapped child, supported by such services and are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction” (Id.).

With respect to prong two, the parents must show that the educational program met the student's special educational needs Burlington supra at 471 M.S. v. Board of Education, 231 F.3d 96, 104-105 (2nd Cir 2000). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers, nor have its own IEP for the student. Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 06-037; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-111.

Plaintiff's burden is to show that the program was properly designed for the student to progress and is not required to show that the student in fact progressed significantly. G.R. v. New York City Department of Education, 07 CIV 4711 (TPG) (SD NY Decided August 7, 2009).

The SRO has determined as a matter of law that a parent's unilateral placement of a child in a school that does not provide the necessary related services a student needs renders the placement inappropriate under Prong II of Burlington. See, Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-057 (SRO denied tuition because the private school did not provide adequate related services to meet the child's needs)

Courts consider the “totality of the circumstances” and parents “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.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65;

The IDEA requires that educational instruction must be provided to the child in the least restrictive environment, with the child participating to the maximum extent possible in the same classrooms and activities as non-disabled children. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203-204. While parents are not held as strictly to the least restrictive environment standard as school districts, “the restrictiveness of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement.” Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-130 (denying reimbursement where unilateral placement “did not provide the student with special education services in the least restrictive environment”)

The third and final criterion for an award of reimbursement is that the claim be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA, Burlington supra at 471 U.S. At 374.

New York courts consider whether the parent has “failed to cooperate with a school district or otherwise frustrated a district's attempt to offer a FAPE” and whether the parent attended IEP meetings and school visits, and communicated with the DOE. D.A v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ, 769 F. Supp 2d 403, 419020 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). under the IDEA, Burlington supra at 471 U.S. At 374.

With respect to prong one the DOE did not put on any witnesses to defend their IEP. There is no evidence of any school placement that was offered to Student for either the 2019-2020 or 2020-2021 school year. Parent in the due process complaint enumerates DOEs failure to provide an appropriate program or placement. DOE did not dispute any of the allegations. I find that DOE failed to provide a FAPE to Student for the 2019-2020 school year and two summer months for the 2020-2021 school year. I find that the DOE did not meet their burden under prong one.

With respect to prong two, [REDACTED] is the Executive Director at the [REDACTED]. They are a residential school and many of the students come from a more restrictive environment such as hospitals, wilderness programs or other treatment programs. (Tr 391)

The residential portion consists of twelve dormitories on campus. Each dormitory has two live in teacher counselors. There are from six to ten students in any dorm. Students have a roommate. There are activities during residential time. They participate in clubs, sports and different areas of extracurricular activities.

Students eat in the dining room three times. The night staff check to make sure everything is quiet at night. There is therapeutic support twenty-four hours a day. (Tr. 394)

Every Student is assigned a therapist and a prescriber. They meet with their therapist twice a week for individual sessions. They have group therapy led by clinicians and an administrator. They provide family therapy. It is very individualized to meet student’s needs. They meet with their prescriber as needed. They provide speech and language pathologist and a nutritionist on staff. They provide ongoing professional development in both the clinical, academic and in the activity realm. (Tr 396)

They have team meeting once a week with clinicians and advisors. (Tr 397) Therapy is integrated into each student’s day depending on their needs. (Tr 450)

Witness was familiar with and had worked with Student. He had been Student’s advisor. There were regular communications and collaborations with teachers and therapists.

Witness described Student as very bright, motivated, and friendly. Initially, his mood fluctuated a lot. He had poor coping strategies and self-medicated with marijuana. He was anxious and needed a lot of work to boost his confidence. (Tr. 403)

Witness opined that Student required a therapeutic residential program. Student had come from a [REDACTED] program and his issues were 24/7 and required constant supervision. (Tr 403)

Witness opined that Student benefitted from small class size and structure. He developed close relationships which made him comfortable and do well academically. (Tr. 404) Classrooms were very structured to help with attentional issues. He benefitted from extracurricular activities.

Student lived in a dorm with ten students and two teachers during his stay at [REDACTED]. He required supervision and nurturing relationships. At the end of his stay, Student was more-self-sufficient. (Tr. 407)

Student had been very vulnerable to unhealthy coping strategies. He became more confident. He dramatically improved family relationships. (Tr. 408) His Parents were very involved with family therapy. (Tr 413)

In group therapy they focused on transitions and independent living skills after graduation. Transition was an area of stress.

Student was in small classes with peers who were functioning at a similar level to him. They provided him with a college-level course through the University of [REDACTED]. (Tr. 417-148)

Students were sent home for about three months in March 2020 because of COVID. Student made progress in his distant learning program. He still had therapy twice a week He had prescribed meetings. Student was one of the few that did very well. (Tr 422) The tuition was slightly reduced during this time. (Tr. 435, Exhibit R)

They reopened in July for the residential portion. Student attended for an additional two months in summer 2020 and graduated in August.

Parent opined that Student made progress during COVID. They provided constant support and supervision. He opined that [REDACTED] was appropriate.

DOE argues that there was no basis for Student to attend a restrictive environment. They argue that Student wanted to be away at school and imply that this was the reason for his attendance at such a restrictive environment. Student had attended a wilderness program prior to his attending [REDACTED] School. Student had been privately evaluated by REDEACTED who strongly recommended that Student transition directly from his wilderness program to a therapeutic residential boarding school. (Exhibit 18) I find that Student required a restrictive environment in order to continue his success after attending the wilderness program.

DOE argues that Parent provided no specifics with respect to the appropriateness of [REDACTED] School. I find that the evidence is undisputed that [REDACTED] School provided Student with the individualized supports and supervision during the day and evening for him to progress. I find that evidence establishes that Student made academic progress and went on to college. More importantly, I find Student became more confident and made social and emotional progress. I find that [REDACTED] School was appropriate and conferred an educational benefit to Student. I find Parents met their burden under prong two.

With respect to prong three, DOE argues that the equities do not support Parent. They argue that Parents were not forthcoming about their “true home address”. Parent points out that on December 19, 2019 there was a social history meeting. (Exhibit 39) They argue that DOE could have challenged residency at any time during the 2019-2020 school year. They point out that DOE chose to first address the issue of residency six months after Student graduated high school. It is undisputed that Parents were very involved with the entire process including attending meetings, providing information and expressing their concerns. I find any arguments with respect to residency are not relevant to the equities in this matter.

In summary I find that it is appropriate for an IHO to determine residency under the presented circumstances, Parents established residency up and until the end of March 2020, and [REDACTED] is appropriate.

ORDER

The DOE shall reimburse Parents for tuition paid to [REDACTED] and directly fund any remaining balance for Student’s attendance during the 2019-2020 school year up until March 20, 2020 upon evidence of contract, attendance and payments.

Sharyn Finkelstein December 17, 2023.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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.

EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1. IEP 2/28/2020 (21 pages; DOE)

2. Consent for Evaluation 12/19/2019 (1 page; DOE)

3. Initial Referral 11/8/2019 (1 page; DOE)

4 Invitation for Student to participate

In IEP Meeting 1/27/2020 1 5 Request for Consent Email 11/26/2020 3 6 Proof of Residence Parent provided to CSE Various 2 7 [REDACTED] School Letter and Transcript Various 2 8 Psychological Assessment to [REDACTED] 8/2/2019 20 9 [REDACTED] School District 10/10/2019 to 10/25/2019 8 10 REACTED Discharge Summary 9/3/2019 4 11 [REDACTED] tuition and Affidavits and Contracts various 10 12 [REDACTED] School Final Attendance Record undated 1 13 UCC-1 for [REDACTED] East 48th Street 9/13/2018 4 14 Parent Deed to [REDACTED] Maple Avenue 5/23/2008 4 15 Realtor com Listing for [REDACTED] E 48th Street 2/10/2021 3 16 Realtor.com listing for [REDACTED] Maple Avenue 2/10/2021 4 17 PWN Relating to Residency Determination 2/16/2021 3 18 Initial Referral to [REDACTED] School District 8/20/2019 6 19 IEP Withdrawal Request from [REDACTED]

City School District 10/18/2019 3

20 [REDACTED] School District

Social and Medical History 9/24/2019 4

21 DMV Records Various 7

22 “The Daily Gazette” Article re: Student

And [REDACTED]

23 [REDACTED] Linked In Profile Various 11 24 [REDACTED] School Documents Pursuant

To Subpoena Request Various 10 25 Parents’ NYSED Appeal Package 3/18/2021 32 26 Parents’ 2019 Federal Tax Return 10/14/2020 44 27 Parents’ 2020 NYS and Federal Tax Return 9/7/2021 49 28 Parents’ Tax Filing Extension Dates Various 10 29 [REDACTED] E 48th Street maintenance payments Various 8 30 [REDACTED] E 48th Street CD and Stock and Lease 6/1/2021 23 31 Initial DPC 193165 3/11/2020 23 32 Amended DPC 193165 7/1/2020 6 33 Termination Order 193165 3/19/2021 4 34 IEP 2/28/2020 21 35 Notice of IEP meeting 1/27/2020 3 36 Prior Notice Package 8/24/2020 9 37 Assessment Planning Undated 1 38 Consent for Initial Evaluation 12/19/2019 6 39 Social History Report 12/19/2019 6 40 [REDACTED] School Profile 1/2020 14 41 DOE Exit Summary 12/8/2020 4 42 DOE Jurisdictional Brief 1/18/2022 7

PARENTS’ EVIDENCE

A 2019 Federal and State Tax Returns 10/14/2020 67 B 2020 Federal and State Tax Returns 5/17/2021 49 C Electronic Filing Client Status History

For Tax Years Various 10 D Copy of 2019 Tax Returns 2/17/2021 15 E Affidavit of [REDACTED] 5/11/2021 1 F [REDACTED] Credit Card Statement 2018-2020 113 G Closing Documents for Purchase of [REDACTED] East

48th Street Apt [REDACTED] New York, NY 10017 9/13/2018 18 H Maintenance Bills for [REDACTED] East 48th Street

Apt [REDACTED] New York, NY 10017 Various Dates 8 I Verizon Bills for Cable and Internet for [REDACTED]

East 48th Street Apt. [REDACTED] New York NY 10017Various Dates

21 J ConEdison Bills for [REDACTED] East 48th Street Apt [REDACTED]

New York, NY 10017 Various Dates 13 K W2s for [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] 2020 2

L. Notes Undated (1 page)

M. Parent letter with fax confirmation 10/18/2019 (2 pages)

N. Parent letter with fax confirmation receipt 1/17/2022 (2 pages)

O. Parent letter with confirmation receipt 2/18/2020 (3 pages)

P. Parent letter with confirmation receipt 6/22/2020 (3 pages)

Q. [REDACTED] School enrollment contract 10/18/2020 (2 pages)

R. Affidavit of payment various (11 pages)

S. Proof of payment various (1 page)

T. Attendance Record 8/15/2020 (1 page)

U. Class Schedule 9/14/2020 (4 pages)

V [REDACTED] School program information undated 19

W [REDACTED] School student reports various 13

X. Due Process complaint 11/3/2021 (6 pages)

Y Parent brief on authority of IHO rule on Residency 1/18/22 5

Z. 2019/2020 progress report (12 pages)

AA Clinical intake summary 9/3/2-19 2

BB Academic clinical discharge summary

Recommendations 8/16/2020 6