Impartial Hearing Decision

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 10/07/22 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 11/15/22 (V)

[REDACTED] Parent PARENT 11/15/22 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 12/05/22 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 01/03/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 01/03/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 02/13/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Parent PARENT 02/13/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 02/13/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 02/13/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Witness DOE 02/13/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 04/17/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Parent PARENT 04/17/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 04/17/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 04/17/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 04/17/23 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages Parent Request for 07/26/22 PARENT Impartial Hearing B Acknowledgement of 07/28/22 PARENT 02 DOE Receipt of Parent's Hearing Request C Interim order for 10/18/22 PARENT 05 Evaluation G Individualized 04/06/20 PARENT 19 Education Program H Individualized 04/12/21 PARENT 27 Education Program Q Functional Behavioral 10/26/20 PARENT 10 Assessment with Behavioral Intervention Plan R Functional Behavioral 03/07/22 PARENT 08 Assessment with Behavior Intervention Plan S Neuropsychological 11/17/22 PARENT 28 Evaluation T Functional Behavioral 11/22/22 PARENT 13 Assessment with Behavior Intervention Plan U Annual Review 02/05/21 PARENT 03 Occupational Therapy V Annual Review 03/01/21 PARENT 03 Speech-Language Therapy 09 pages

Y. W Annual Review Academic 03/02/21 PARENT 04 X Annual Review Physical 03/28/21 PARENT 04 Therapy Progress Report, Annual 06/2021 PARENT Goals 07 pages

Z. Progress Report, Annual 02/01/22 PARENT Goals 09 pages

FF. EE Annual Review 03/07/22 PARENT 02 Social-Emotional Progress Report, Annual 06/2022 PARENT Goals GG Annual Review, Academic 11/18/22 PARENT 04 HH Annual Review, 11/18/22 PARENT 03 Speech-Language Therapy, 08 pages

KK. II Annual Review, 11/21/22 PARENT 05 Occupational Therapy JJ Annual Review, Physical 11/21/22 PARENT 05 Therapy Meeting Notes 03/10/22 PARENT 04 pages

LL. Parent's Request for 04/05/22 PARENT 06 pages

MM. Evaluation with Resumes Of Proposed Evaluators Prior Written Notice 04/11/22 PARENT 08 pages

NN. Regarding Evaluation Letter from Parent's 04/11/22 PARENT Attorney to CSE 3 1 02 pages

OO. Regarding Evaluation Notice of Unilateral 06/20/22 PARENT Placement PP License Information, 06/21/22 PARENT 01 01 pages

[REDACTED]

QQ Year End Attendance 06/24/22 PARENT 02

Record

RR Response to Notice of 07/06/22 PARENT 02

Unilateral Placement

SS Parental Guarantee of 07/07/22 PARENT ^[02]

2022-2023 Tuition

TT Tuition Affidavit 07/26/22 PARENT 01

UU Class Schedule, N/A PARENT 01

Summer 2022

VV Student Attendance 08/19/22 PARENT 01

Record

WW Meeting Notice 11/18/22 PARENT 03

XX [REDACTED] Base N/A PARENT

On July 28, 2022, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of a eight (8) year old student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) District 26. The Parent (grandmother and legal guardian) alleged a denial of FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year. The Parent filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about July 26, 2022. Impartial hearings were held on February 13, 2023 and April 17, 2023.

On March 10, 2022, an IEP meeting was held. Parent alleges the IEP created was procedurally and substantively flawed. Additionally, Prior Written Notice was sent to the Parent 5 months after the IEP meeting, however there was no school location letter attached. (Ex. 2)

The Parent requested an interim order of relief on or about August 18, 2022, seeking an independent neuropsychological exam. The Parents relief was granted on October 18, 2022, and an order was issued to commence the exam. (C)

A written closing statement was submitted by the Parent and the undersigned did not receive a written closing statement from the DOE. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief:

• A finding that the student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.

• A finding that the private school was an appropriate placement for the student for

• Tuition funding/direct payment of the student’s tuition at the private school for the 2022-2023 school year; and

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE called one witness to testify on its behalf and submitted (6) 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 (3) witnesses testify on their behalf, who testified on direct and some were also cross examined by the District. The Parent also submitted (51) 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.

The DOE’s witness, the school psychologist, [REDACTED], testified on direct as follows: The witness testified that they recommended a 12:1:1: program for the student. (T-66). The witness further testified that “If I remember right, we recommended -- I think we recommended, if I remember right, it was speech, PT, parent counseling and training, occupational therapy, and counseling, I believe. A full-time para was also recommended for the students’ behavioral issues. (T-66) The witness further testified that a psychological evaluation from 2020 was used to help determine the Program on the IEP and progress reports from [REDACTED]. (T-67) The witness testified that new evaluations were not conducted because they relied on the progress reports. (T-69)

On cross examination, [REDACTED] (Interposing) Okay. Do any 3 of the District 75 programs that have 12:1:1 classes for students with autism have board certified behavior analysts as full-time members of their faculties? [REDACTED]: I don't know. (T-78) [REDACTED]: Okay. And was there anything in those annual review reports that led you to conclude that the program at [REDACTED] was not appropriate for [REDACTED] during the school year in which you were situated at the time?

[REDACTED]: No. (T-98)

PARENT’S WITNESS

Parents witness [REDACTED] testified on direct as follows: [REDACTED] diagnosed the student with autism Spectrum disorder, Level 3, which is the most severe form of autism. (T-117). When asked “what are the implications for a child's educational programing of a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder level three with intellectual impairment? “ The Dr. testified as follows, “It would mean that the child would have very significant needs in multiple areas, including the acquisition of basic skills, a behavioral control, social-emotional needs as well, activities of daily living. And as DSM-5 1 specifies, it has to be a marked impairment requiring substantial support.” (T-118)

When asked to give her opinion on the recommendation of 6:1:1 on the students IEP, the witness testified as follows: “You probably are aware that [REDACTED] is in a class with 6 students, a 6:1:1 class at [REDACTED], and that the IEP in question in this proceeding is recommending a placement in a class with students. Can you give us your professional opinion about the appropriateness of a 6:1:1 versus a 12:1:1 class placement for this particular child? [REDACTED]: Well, it's a world of difference. As I mentioned here in looking at [REDACTED] and when I was there, it was more of a oneto-one ratio, to tell you the truth. And even with that, these children are young. It is more of a homogeneous grouping, which is appropriate, because that's really the definition of a peer that you don't -- you can't really deal with a huge diversity in behavior or learning styles in order to be effective in the classroom. So you want the children to be well grouped and work synergistically as a -- as a whole. And that's what I saw happening with the -- with the children and the staff at – at [REDACTED], that there was a very small student/teacher ratio. And I -- and I have to say to you, there's nothing magical about a ratio. But for a child like [REDACTED], you have to keep the noise level down. You have to group him with children who are similar to him so that the instruction can -- can be appropriate for this small group that he's in. And I can't imagine how that could be done with a ratio of 12:1. I can't imagine.” (T-124-126) [REDACTED] conducted the student’s neuropsychological exam. (S)

Parents witness, [REDACTED] who is the Principal at the private school testified on direct via affidavit to the following:

I participated in [REDACTED] IEP team meeting on March 10, 2022. At that meeting, based on his progress in the ABA program at [REDACTED], I advocated for his continued placement in a program that would provide structured, ABA based instructional and behavioral services in a small 6:1:1 learning environment. The school district representative determined, nevertheless, that the student should be offered a placement in a 12:1:1 class, and that includes ADA as a methodology on the IEP. I disagree with those determinations, as did the parent. During the IEP meeting on March 10, 2022, the Department of Education representative presented, no neuropsychological evaluation, psychoeducational evaluation, occupational therapy, evaluation, physical therapy, evaluation, speech, language, evaluation, or adaptive, physical education evaluation for the teams consideration. [REDACTED] conducted an updated functional behavioral assessment for [REDACTED] on November 22, 2022. The FBA was conducted by [REDACTED], who is a board-certified behavior analyst. [REDACTED] also developed a behavior intervention plan that is based on that BIP. [REDACTED] serves as a resource for the teachers, service, providers and paraprofessionals who are responsible for implementing the BIP. [REDACTED] continues to provide [REDACTED] with a small, structured homogeneously group, class placement, with instruction and behavioral support in an intensive schoolwide, ABA program, with all necessary related services, and with behavioral supports Taylor to address his evolving abilities and needs. (YY)

Parents witness, [REDACTED], testified on cross examination about how the school tracks the students’ progress, “[REDACTED]: So it's tracked in a couple of different ways. Academically, they track his progress. They have what's called a program book. That's where they do Discrete Trials and they keep the data on the programs he's working on, like his IEP goals. So that is tracked through graphs on a daily basis. But they -– the teachers also input quarterly four times a week progress marks on their IEP goals. And they also submit report cards four times a year. Behaviorally, it's tracked through the behaviors they're trying to eliminate. So that's tracked daily. And then it's tallied up. So it's like a tally sheet. And then it's tallied up. And then the crisis intervention professional specialist, he –- he can make a graph and just check out, you know, his behaviors when they're occurring. This way, we can figure out why they're occurring, if it's during a particular period of the day. And then we can zone in onto why that's happening then.” (T166-167) Whereas under the IDEA, the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief. (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. at 59-62) On August 15, 2007, the New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of proof upon the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement would continue to have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended statute took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007. (SRO No. 08-016); and

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 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. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B] and Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982])

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE 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. (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07 and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]) While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. (See 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] and Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007])

Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is 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. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008] and 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])

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (See 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; SRO No. 07-018; 06-059; 06-029; 04-046; 02-014; 01-095 and 93-09) Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented. (See 8 NYCRR 200.4[e][7] and SRO No. 08-087)

The DOE 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. (See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993] and Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]) 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. (See 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, 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. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148)

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during 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], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended law took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007; therefore, it applies to the instant case. (See SRO No. 08-016)

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 seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate." (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112 and M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 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….'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 [2d Cir. 2006] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions]) Parents 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"]]) A "private placement is only appropriate if it provides 'education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [emphasis in original], citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89)

The IDEA allows that tuition 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 removing the child 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." (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I] and 34 C.F.R. § 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 whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools." (See 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 tuition reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision. (See 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]); SRO No. 07-133; 07-120; 07-115; 07-098; 07-079; 07-075; 07-038; 07-032; 06-122; 06-069; 06-057; 06-042; 06-041; 06-035; 05-092 and 04-022)

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parent's claim be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000] and 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." (See 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, the IDEA provides that tuition 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, fail to engage with potential placements offered by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; Thies v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 344728 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 53181 at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2008]; Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560, at *4 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]; Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 373 F. Supp. 2d 402, 417-18 [S.D.N.Y. 2005], aff'd, 2006 WL 2335140 [2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2006] and Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9)

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. (SRO No. 04-049) In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence in this case is as follows:

The Parents witness, [REDACTED] conducted the students neuropsychological and testified on direct. The Parents evidence shows that the student has made academic progress while enrolled in the private school for the 2022-2023 school year. The students’ educational records, progress reports and behavioral records are submitted into evidence. (Y, Z, EE, FF)

The annual review reports issued during the 2022-2023 school years attest to the Student’s meaningful progress in the ABA program at the private school. (GG, HH, II, JJ);

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)

The Parents evidence shows that the student has made academic and behavioral progress while enrolled in the private school for the 2022-2023 school year. The students’ educational records, progress reports and behavioral records are submitted into evidence. (Id)

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.

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 student’s 2022-2023 school year and that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall fund and pay directly for the cost of the student’s tuition and related services, including transportation costs at the private school for the time the student attended the private school during the 2022-2023, 12 month school year and said payments should be made directly to the school within 30 days of this order and it is further

ORDERED that within 30 days the DOE shall conduct all necessary evaluations based on the recent neuropsychological evaluation and any other recent evaluations conducted prior to this hearing, including but not limited to an adaptive physical education evaluation and it is further

ORDERED that within 30 days 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 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: July 11, 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

[02] Program Description YY Affidavit of [REDACTED] 01/13/23 PARENT 08 1 IEP 03/10/22 DOE 38 2 Prior Written Notice 12/02/22 DOE 04 3 Speech-Language Therapy 03/01/22 DOE 04 Annual Review 4 Occupational Therapy 02/26/22 DOE 04 Annual Review 5 Physical Therapy Annual 03/07/22 DOE 05 Review 6 Annual Review 03/02/22 DOE 04 I Parent Closing Brief 05/04/23 IHO 31 the 2022-2023 school year.