New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 1/20/2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 8/11/2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 9/22/2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

Sheila Sitt, Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 10/24/2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 12/ 01/2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 06/16/2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 09/09/2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

[REDACTED], Paralegal

[REDACTED], Parent Student

[REDACTED]–Director of Academic Programs, [REDACTED]

[REDACTED],PSY. D. , BCBA-D LBA, [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

INTRODUCTION

On 11/24/2021, I was appointed as 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) and Article89 of the Education Law of the State of New York. The Parent filed the Due Process Complaint (DPC), dated 11/24/2021. (Ex A)

Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.

Hearings were subsequently held for the matter on January 20, 2022 , August 11, 2022, September 22, 2022, October 24, 2022, December 1, 2022, June 16, 2023, August 9, 2023, September 13, 2023 and September 26, 2023. The Hearing Request alleges the DOE failed to offer the Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2021-2022 school year. (Ex A)

The Parent seeks reimbursement of monies paid for the Students' 2021-2022 unilateral placement (a) tuition and costs at [REDACTED]; (b) cost of transportation to/from [REDACTED] and services; (c) 40 hours per week of SEIT/ABA teaching and support; (d) 5 hours per week of 1:1 speech and language therapy; (e) 2 hours per week of 1:1 occupational therapy; (f) cost of yearly neuropsychological evaluation; (g) safe transportation to and from school; (h) team meetings twice per month; and (i) social group, one session per week.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POSITION

No witnesses nor evidence was submitted to support that a FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021-2022 school year. At the Hearing on 09/2/2022 the DOE representative stated the DOE is not presenting a Prong I case however they are not conceding that the student was not provided with a FAPE for the school year in issue. With regard to Prong II , the DOE representative stated the DOE agrees the student is entitled to more than the IEP states however they are not agreeing to the appropriateness of the requested relief. Regarding Prong III, the DOE representative stated they will not be raising any equitable challenges that would bar the parent from the requested relief. The DOE waived an opening, and rested their case. (Tr. 50-51)The DOE did not submit a closing brief although they had the opportunity to do so and stated they would rest on the record.

T HE PARENT'S POSITION

The Parent 's attorney set forth allegations and relief sought in the DPC and at Hearing. ( Ex A)

The Parent calls 3 witnesses and submits 29 pieces of evidence A-CC.

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Purposes of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation 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).

The Supreme Court has stated that even if it is unreasonable to expect a student to attend a regular education setting and achieve on grade level, the educational program set forth in the student's IEP "must be appropriately ambitious in light of his [or her] circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000).

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). 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). 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. at 13- 14). 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. of the City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 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, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207). 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 a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the 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; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] ["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 appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014]; C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 836 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365).

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, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; 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. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]; L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 674 Fed. App'x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]). 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]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]mportant to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).

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 their removal of 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 CFR 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 whethera [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools" (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]). Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).

Prong I

Did the DOE offer of FAPE for the 2021-22 School Year? The DOE offered no evidence of an offer of FAPE for the Student for the 21 -22 school year. Simply stating that the DOE is not presenting a case to defend however is not conceding the same is equivalent to a concession. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true "unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record." Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002). The DOE's silence at hearing has the effect of conceding every point alleged by the parent against the DOE unless it is inconsistent with the hearing record. By failing to present witnesses, or evidence I find that the DOE Representative conceded that a FAPE was not provided to the student for the 21-22 school year.

Prong II

Was [REDACTED] an appropriate Placement for the 21-22 School Year?

Testimony and documentary evidence support [REDACTED] and the supplemental educational and related services were appropriate for the student, for the 21-22 school year. Nothing was submitted or raised by the DOE to the contrary.

Assistant Principal, [REDACTED], who is the Director of Special Education at [REDACTED], credibly testified the student attends the "[REDACTED]" at [REDACTED]. This is a program tailored for students with language based learning disabilities. It is highly individualized in a smaller setting and the teachers utilize the Orton Gillingham literacy program and multisensory approaches to support the students individual needs. He is familiar with the student and believes that without the 1:1 SEIT support that the student would not be able to attend [REDACTED]. He testified that the student is within a class of 6-8 students and that [REDACTED] needs the small environment with the 1:1 support because [REDACTED] has to go over the information [REDACTED] has learned. (Tr. 162-169) [REDACTED] testified the family provided the SEIT. In addition, the student received OT, Counseling and Speech .[REDACTED] believes the student made meaningful progress and gains in [REDACTED] ability to decode as well as gains in literacy and math. (Tr. 170-174)

The Parents second witness is [REDACTED] the SEIT Supervisor. Her affidavit Ex. CC was sworn to on the record and the Parents utilized the exhibit in lieu of direct testimony. On Cross the witness testified the student received 25-30 hours of 1:1 ABA per week.. She notes the student made progress in that [REDACTED] interfering behaviors that interfered with [REDACTED] learning reduced. In addition, at the beginning of the school year at issue [REDACTED] needed prompting to be able to match any multiples of 5. At the end of the year [REDACTED] could do so independently. (Tr. 190-191)

It is noted the DOE Representative had minimal cross examination of witness #1 and #2.

The third and final witness was the Parent[REDACTED]. She testified that she attended the 1/10/21 IEP meeting however was not provided an IEP not a school location letter. She stated that she has paid the tuition in full at [REDACTED] as well as paid all the invoices that have been submitted into evidence. She believes her [REDACTED] made progress in all areas such as reading and math as well as not requiring as much prompting. There was no cross examination by the DOE. (Tr. 194-197)

Based upon the credible testimony of all witnesses and the documents submitted into evidence I find [REDACTED] along with the supplemental services served as an appropriate placement and program to the Student for the 2021-22 school year.

Prong III- Are there equitable considerations that would reduce or bar the relief requested by the Parents?

The Parent is not evidenced in any way to have frustrated any attempt by the DOE to offer the Student a FAPE for the 21-22 school year. The DOE Representative notes for the record the DOE is not raising any equitable challenges. (Tr. 51)

FUNDING 2020-2021 School Year

The Parent is seeking reimbursement for monies paid for the students' tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2021-2022 school year in the amount of $ 47, 445 as evidenced in Exhibit D and F. After reviewing documents submitted by the Parents more particularly Exhibit R, it would appear that approximately 4% of the school week is devoted to Religious studies (prayer). The Parent should be reimbursed for the monies paid less 4% of $47, 445 which represents the religious portion of the tuition for the 2021-2022 school year.

In addition to tuition reimbursement the Parent seeks reimbursement of monies paid for the invoices submitted into evidence more particularly in Exhibits G, H, I, K, M and O. Upon proof of payment of services the parent will be reimbursed for said amounts expended.

ORDER

1. Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.

2. [REDACTED] serves as an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2021-22 school year.

3. Upon proof of payment and the student's attendance the DOE shall reimburse the parent directly for monies paid for the students' tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2021-2022 less 4% of the total cost of tuition ($47, 445). The 4% is the portion of tuition allocated towards religious instruction.

The DOE will reimburse the parent within 45 days of receipt of the aforesaid proof.

4. Upon proof of payment the DOE will reimburse the parents for monies paid for invoices entered into evidence more particularly Exhibits G,-Seit invoices by [REDACTED], H, SEIT invoices of [REDACTED], I, Speech invoices of [REDACTED], K, SEIT Invoices by [REDACTED], M, ABA Invoices by [REDACTED], and O, ABA invoices by [REDACTED]. The DOE will reimburse the parent within 45 days of receipt of the aforesaid payment.

5. This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.

DATED: October 27, 2023

IHO Tina Millman

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. The regulations governing appeals 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.

As those Regulations detail, before filing an appeal, if either party intends to appeal the decision, a Notice of Intention to Seek Review shall be personally served upon the opposing party before the Appeal itself is filed, no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

The Appeal itself must 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.

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 PARENT

Seq EVIDENCE DESCRIPTION Date of Evidence # of Pages A Demand for Due Process with fax confirmation 11/24/21 12 B 10 Day Letter with email confirmation 10/28/21 03 C [REDACTED] Neuropsychological Summary 05/15/19 04 D Enrollment Contract of [REDACTED] 08/18/21 05 E [REDACTED] 2021-2022 11 F Tuition Affidavit by [REDACTED] 06/27/22 01 G SEIT Invoices by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 06 H SEIT Invoices of [REDACTED] 2021-2022 04 I Speech Invoices of [REDACTED] 2021-2022 25 J License and Resume of [REDACTED] Undated 03 K SEIT Invoices by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 05 L License and Resume of [REDACTED] Undated 10 M ABA Invoices by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 03 N License of [REDACTED] Undated 01 O ABA Invoices by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 08 P License of [REDACTED] Undated 01 Q Attendance Record by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 01 R Schedule by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 01 S Speech Progress Report by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 02 T OT Progress Report by [REDACTED] June 2022 03 U Classroom Report 06/21/22 05 V Counseling Observations by [REDACTED] 04/13/22 01 W Report Card by [REDACTED] 2021-2022 02 X Findings of Fact and Decision of [REDACTED] 07/17/20 20 Y Pendency Agreement 01/05/21 02 Z Findings of Fact and Decision of [REDACTED] 04/11/22 20 AA Pendency Agreement 05/04/22 02 BB License of [REDACTED] Undated 01 CC Affidavit of [REDACTED] 08/02/23 07

DOE Evidence None

IHO Evidence

PARENT

I. Closing Brief, 9/20/23, 5pp