New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 574845 - NYC: 227655

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 10/05/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 10/05/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 11/14/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 11/14/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 12/13/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 12/13/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 01/31/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Parent PARENT 01/31/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Witness PARENT 01/31/22 (V) [CONFIDENTIAL] Spanish Interpreter PARENT 01/31/22 (V) [CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 01/31/22 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages Due Process Complaint 07/01/22 PARENT 09 pages

B. IEP 02/28/22 PARENT 26 pages

C. Neuropsychological 10/21/19 PARENT 43 Evaluation, 10/21/19 D Occupational Therapy 06/21/19 PARENT 08 Evaluation

E. Speech-Language 06/15/19 PARENT Evaluation 13 pages

F. Upper School Program N/A PARENT Description 06 pages

G. '22 Extended School N/A PARENT 02 pages

H. Year Program Description '22 Class N/A PARENT Schedule Summer 01 pages

I. '22 progress N/A PARENT Report Summer 05 pages

J. '22 Class Schedule N/A PARENT 01 pages

K. Progress Report 06/17/22 PARENT 25 pages

L. Internship Notice 10/04/22 PARENT 02 pages

M. IEP 04/20/17 PARENT 17 pages

N. IEP 03/01/21 PARENT 34 pages

O. Attendance 11/01/22 PARENT 01 pages

P. Tuition Affidavit 11/01/22 PARENT 01 pages

Q. Enrollment Contract 05/04/22 PARENT 03 pages

R. Ten-Day Notice of Intent 06/16/22 PARENT 02 pages

S. Tax Returns N/A PARENT 2021 01 pages

T. Prior Written Notice 04/06/22 PARENT Packet 16 pages

U. Notice of Missing 04/10/22 PARENT School Location Letter 02 pages

V. Prior Written Notice 06/27/22 PARENT Packet 10 pages

W. Parent Request to Visit 06/27/22 PARENT School 01 pages

X. School Response to 06/27/22 PARENT Visit Request, 6/27/22, 02 pages

Y. Affidavit of REDACTED 01/25/23 PARENT 09 pages

1. IEP 2/28/22 DOE 26 pages DOE

2. IEP Attendance Page 02/28/22 DOE 01 pages DOE

3 REDACTED and 02/04/22 DOE ^[20]

Institute Progress Report

4 Psychoeducational 06/12/19 DOE 05

Evaluation

5 Prior Written Notice 04/06/22 DOE 07

6 School Location Letter 06/27/22 DOE 04

On July 11, 2022, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) District 02. The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about July 1, 2022. Impartial hearings were held on September 14, 2022, October 5, 2022, November 14, 2022, December 13, 2022 and January 31, 2023. A list of the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision.

BACKGROUND

On or about March 01, 2022, a CSE meeting was held for the student. The CSE recommended an ESY program at a D-75 school in a 12:1+1 class with adapted physical education, travel training, group and 1:1 counseling, group and 1:1 speech language therapy, group meeting occupational therapy, parent training, and assistive technology. The Parents allege that the student’s previous Individualized Education Program (“IEP”), is procedurally and substantively flawed and woefully inadequate. (A-DPC) Accordingly, the Parents further allege that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2022-2023 school years. (Id.) The Parents allege that the CSE failed to conduct a proper review for the student and make appropriate recommendations for his educational planning. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief:

• Tuition funding for the student’s attendance at the private school for the 2022-2023 school years. • A finding that the student would have been entitled to transportation services to and from the private school.

THE DOE’S CASE

documents in evidence. 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 had (2) witnesses testify on their behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f]. On the hearing date, the DOE crossed one of the two affiants. The Parent also submitted (24) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

DOES’ DEFAULT

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 testamentary 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.

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 filled 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 l[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] 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 (1st 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)

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 either party and the documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find the documentary evidence submitted by the parent to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. I find the parent’s documentary evidence 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} 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 2022-2023 school year and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief she has requested.

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT

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"])

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])

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. 2011])

In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence concerning the appropriateness of the private school is as follows:

The DOE’s default herein supports a judgment in favor of the Parent and a finding that the student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school years.

The Parents evidence shows that the student’s unilateral placement school provides individualized instruction and the students has progressed during her time there as per the direct testimony via affidavit by the Assistant Head of the private School,

REDACTED. (Y)

1. As Assistant Head of School, my duties include developing and managing school schedules; providing direct supervision to the team of paraprofessionals to ensure all students receive the supports they need; providing parent support; collaborating with the counseling and transition department; facilitating regular multidisciplinary meetings to discuss student progress, meeting weekly with all department chairs to discuss program goals as a school leadership team and managing Veracross—the program utilized for tracking student progress.

REDACTED Program and Objectives

2. REDACTED (“we” or “us”) has a shared campus for our lower, middle, and upper schools, grades Kindergarten through Twelfth.

3. Having smaller class sizes, and a smaller student population generally, enables me to engage with the students in the upper school regularly, including directly observing them within the classroom setting, as well as interacting and observing the students in less structured periods.

4. At REDACTED, we serve a diverse population of learning profiles for students that require the high degree of specializations and services that we provide.

5. Some of the core components of our programs for all grades include: a. Utilizing a strength-based learning approach; b. Providing a robust academic curriculum with age-appropriate content, standardsdriven, and implemented by special education instructors qualified to differentiate the content as needed to meet the individual student’s needs;

c. Integrating therapeutic services within the classroom setting;

d. Extending the curriculum beyond the classroom to include explicit instruction and experiences that target the development of life skills across all environments and community engagement; and

e. Providing comprehensive transition services, including an individualized transition plan.

6. These core components all serve REDACTED broader mission, which is: a. to capitalize on the potentials of our students; b. to enable them to function independently and successfully across environments;

c. to empower them to demonstrate that their neurodiversity contributes value to their community.

REDACTED Program for the 2022-2023 School Year

1. For the 2022-2023 School Year, REDACTED attended an Extended School Year (“ESY”) program at REDACTED as he has in previous years, because REDACTED struggles to retain learned skills over longer breaks in his instruction, and our ESY program serves to reinforce those skills and enable further retention of the materials. See Ex. G for a Description of REDACTED ESY Program.

2. REDACTED neuropsychological evaluation and his current IEP also recommended an ESY program. See Parent’s Exhibits C and B respectively.

3. REDACTED ESY program at REDACTED provided services consistent with his current 10-month program with regards to core academic content instruction and integrated therapeutic services in speech language therapy (“SLT”), Occupational Therapy (“OT”), Physical Therapy (“PT”), and Counseling (“C”), and it was provided for two (2), three (3) week periods during July and August 2022. See also Exs. H for REDACTED ESY Class Schedule.

4. REDACTED was in a class setting of 8-9 students with One Head Teacher, One Assistant Teacher, Two Paraprofessionals, and his related services providers, where applicable.

5. All of REDACTED head teachers for the entire 2022 – 2023 school year at issue have or are pursuing master’s degrees in special education and hold (or are pursuing) New York State teaching certification. REDACTED assistant teachers all have Bachelor's degrees and many are pursuing Master’s degrees in education.

6. REDACTED ESY curriculum, objectives, and progress was formerly recorded in a comprehensive progress report with student-specific content provided by all of REDACTED teachers and related service providers. See Parent’s Ex. I – Summer Progress Report.

7. REDACTED will produce two more comprehensive progress reports in February 2023, and June 2023, three in total including his ESY Progress Report, See Ex. K – June 2022 Progress Report, as an example of said type of report.

8. For the 2022-2023 10-month school year, REDACTED is in a class setting with a maximum of twelve students and one head teacher, one assistant teacher and two paraprofessionals for all of his core classes.

9. REDACTED is functionally grouped with his peers in classes with students of similar age, functioning and needs throughout the school day.

10. REDACTED curriculum includes an Adaptive Skills course taught by a multidisciplinary team of REDACTED OT, SLT, and Counselor, that targets the development of his adaptive daily living skills across environments and functions, with explicit instruction and access to practice and generalize those skills across environments. See Parent’s Ex. J for REDACTED Fall Class Schedule

11. REDACTED teachers, providers, and advisor are supporting his goals by providing differentiated accommodations and supports customized to REDACTED unique needs, enabling him to learn these strategies and independently refer to them to complete his assignments, when possible.

12. REDACTED also receives more direct interventions and explicit support as needed.

13. REDACTED supports and accommodations for his ELA and Math courses include the following:

a. ELA

i. Prompting questions, graphic organizers, 1:1 assistance as needed, checklists; small group instruction, individual teacher conferencing, and comprehension strategies to identify explicitly stated information such as characters, setting, goal, problem, and solution; and S.W.B.S.T. mnemonic strategy (Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then); and b. Math i. utilizing manipulatives and drawings; scaffolding; worksheets; repetition; small group instruction; one-to-one instruction.

14. REDACTED completed his 12 grade internship successfully this winter, and benefited from the combination model of explicit vocational instruction, and off-premise access to practice those learned skills at BJ’s Shopper, where he completed a ten-week internship, working every Tuesday, with related work tasks regarding inventory accounting, purchasing, and stocking. REDACTED completed an interest inventory and met 1:1 with a job coach to choose this internship, as he had done each year at REDACTED, This year REDACTED survey indicated an interest in clerical and retail jobs and he selected the REDACTED as his top choice. At his internship he was responsible for purchasing food and pantry products for the school, using a spreadsheet to record how much different groups in the school owe for their items, and stocking the items in the school's kitchen. In 11th grade, REDACTED had a community based internship at the REDACTED. In 10th grade, he had a school based internship as a Kitchen Assistant, and in 9th grade he had a school based internship doing recycling.

15. REDACTED has already obtained marked progress towards his academic and functional objectives for the 2022-2023 school year, and the progress that he has achieved since transferring to REDACTED is a testament to the real value that a truly specialized program provides.

16. An important component of REDACTED progress monitoring is our equal focus on academic skill acquisition and the student’s progress towards performing those skills independently.

17. Prior to transferring to REDACTED most recent IEP (dated April 21, 2017), states: a. REDACTED teachers were not able to ascertain his reading comprehension skills because REDACTED was unable to express what his comprehension of the materials was; b. REDACTED could not write a complete sentence; c. When expressing himself, REDACTED never used more than one sentence; and d. REDACTED required substantial aid to attend to instruction and complete tasks, if at all.

18. REDACTED most recent Progress Reports, i.e., his June 2022 or his ESY 2022, identify the substantial growth that REDACTED has achieved in all areas since transferring to REDACTED: a. Regarding REDACTED reading comprehension progress: “With moderate teacher support, REDACTED was successfully able to meet reading comprehension goals such as identifying the 5 W’s, sequencing significant events, and summarizing key information from a given text. REDACTED also practiced comparative thinking skills within the themes. REDACTED demonstrated increasing independence by being able to take an active role in classroom discussions and showing conscientious effort in his daily work.” See Parent’s Ex. I at 2.

b. REDACTED wrote a short story that took place in Asia (incorporating social studies content into the assignment), utilizing “the same graphic organizer used to dissect short stories to build and create a story from scratch that included these elements: characters, setting, goal, problem, solution, aspects of culture, and a lesson. Students engaged in the steps of the Writing Process: planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing.” Ex. K at 7 - June 2022 Progress Report.

a. REDACTED oral expression skills have progressed far beyond producing one sentence to express himself. REDACTED is currently working towards mastery of his ability to recall and retell personal experiences using WH concepts.

b. REDACTED written expression has shown similar advancement, where REDACTED could not complete a written sentence before, and he recently wrote a research-based short story set in Saudi Arabia for his social studies course.

REDACTED research enabled him to incorporate the cultural characteristics of Saudi Arabia into his story.

c. REDACTED has demonstrated progress by independently utilizing learned strategies to complete academic tasks, including anchor charts to identify and sort character traits between physical descriptions and behaviors, and using the S.W.B.S.T. mnemonic strategy (Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then).

d. REDACTED has successfully performed and completed his internship for the 2022-2023 school year with REDACTED.

e. REDACTED met his goals for his ESY math objectives, which targeted functional math skills.

f. REDACTED has developed flexibility in his routines, coping strategies for selfregulation, and the ability to collaborate and engage reciprocally with his peers.

g. REDACTED has developed close to mastery skill levels in adaptive daily living areas such as travel training, food management, health and safety, accessing resources, and organization for school.

19. In light of the above, REDACTED program for the 2022-2023 school year has continued to meet his specialized needs, and enabled him to flourish in all areas, academically, functioning, and socially.

20. Further, REDACTED 2022-2023 REDACTED program has supported the vital objective of REDACTED development of transition skills, by implementing the specialized strategies for vocational and adaptive daily living skill acquisition. (Y)

The students’ progress reports submitted into evidence show the students progress at the private school. (K&L)

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]) (emphasis added) This standard is well below those other standards of review in the law such as “beyond a reasonable doubt”, “clear and convincing evidence”, “preponderance of the evidence”, “substantial evidence” or even perhaps “rational basis.” The record, as accurately summarized by the parties above and adopted in this decision and order, supports a finding that the decision to place the student at the private school was ”reasonable” as an appropriate placement for the student’s 2022-2023 school year.

SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

The IDEA specifically includes transportation, as well as any modifications or accommodations necessary in order to assist a student to benefit from his or her special education, in its definition of related services. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1401[26], see also 34 CFR 300.34[a], [c][16]) In addition, State law defines special education as “specially designed instruction . . . and transportation, provided at no cost to the parents to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” and requires school districts to provide disabled students with “suitable transportation to and from special classes or programs.” (See Educ. Law §§ 4401[1], 4402[4][a], see also Educ. Law § 4401[2] and 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]) Specialized transportation must be included on a student's IEP if required to assist the student to benefit from special education. (SRO No. 03-053) If a CSE determines that a student with a disability requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a FAPE, the district must ensure that the student receives the necessary transportation at public expense. (See Transportation, 71 Fed. Reg. 46576 [Aug. 14, 2006]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww])

The State Education Department has indicated that a CSE should consider a student's mobility, behavior, communication, physical, and health needs when determining whether or not a student requires transportation as a related service, and that an IEP “must include specific transportation recommendations to address each of the student's needs, as appropriate.” (See “Special Transportation for Students with Disabilities,” VESID Mem. [Mar. 2005]) Other relevant considerations may include the student's age, ability to follow directions, ability to function without special transportation, the distance to be traveled, the nature of the area, and the availability of private or public assistance. (See Donald B. v. Bd. of Sch. Commrs., 117 F.3d 1371, 1375 [11th Cir. 1997] and Malehorn v. Hill City Sch. Dist., 987 F. Supp. 772, 775 [D.S.D. 1997]) When reviewing the transportation provisions made for a student by a district, the relevant question is whether the transportation arrangements are appropriate to meet the student's needs. (SRO No. 03-054)

In this case, the, the DPC requests “transportation” services, the record does not, specify or articulate any of the specific reasons cited above that are required as part of the inquiry as to whether the student needs “special education transportation.”

However, this does not preclude a determination regarding the student's entitlement to transportation as available to regular education students or suitable transportation as available to students attending nonpublic schools “for the purpose of receiving services or programs similar to special education programs recommended” by the CSE. (See Educ. Law 3635; 4402[4][[d]) If the DOE has not done so already, it must consider transportation of the student to the private school in accordance with Educ. Law 3635; 4402[4][[d].

There is nothing in the record that support a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the DOE.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school years and that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent, and/or directly pay for the cost of the student’s tuition and related services at the private school for the time the student attended the private school during the 2022-2023 school year; including transportation services for the time the student attended the private school during the 2022-2023 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene and consider all of the student’s evaluations and any other relevant information and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2023-2024 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this “Final Order” 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.

Sharifa Milena Nasser

DATED: April 14, 2023

Queens, New York

Sharifa Milena Nasser - I.H.O.

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 L[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] 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)

Footnotes

[20] United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of a REDACTED year old student attending a private school and the The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted six (6)