Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Case Number 230018

NYS Identifier Number 577796

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 10/06/22, 11/22/22, 12/06/22

01/03/23, 02/09/23, 03/27/23

05/22/23 & 08/16/23

Actual Record Close Date: October 20, 2023

Hearing Officer: Sharifa Milena Nasser

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 10/06/22 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 10/06/22 (V)

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

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 11/22/22 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 12/06/22 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 12/06/22 (V)

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

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

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 02/09/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 02/09/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 03/27/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 03/27/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 05/22/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 05/22/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Mother PARENT 05/22/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 05/22/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 08/16/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Mother PARENT 08/16/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 08/16/23 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages Impartial Hearing 08/23/22 PARENT Request 06 pages

B. Ten-Day Notice 06/16/22 PARENT 02 pages

C. Ten-Day Notice 08/19/22 PARENT 02 pages

D. Individualized Education 06/08/22 PARENT Program 30 pages

E. Clinical Research 11/19/19 PARENT 49 Feedback Report

F. Psychoeducational 09/13/17 PARENT Evaluation Report G Confidential 11/2017 PARENT 21 Neuropsychological Evaluation H Confidential 05/28/22 PARENT 24 Psychological and Cognitive Assessment I Classroom Observation 05/23/22 PARENT 02 J [REDACTED] N/A PARENT 07 School Enrollment Contract 2022 to School Year 2023 05 pages

K. [REDACTED] N/A PARENT 02 School Program Description 2022 to 2023 School Year

L. Tuition Affidavit 01/05/23 PARENT 01 pages

M. Midyear Report 9/2022 to PARENT N [REDACTED] N/A PARENT 01 Program Description 1/2203 05 pages

R. O [REDACTED] 02/08/23 PARENT 01 Invoice, 2/8/23, one page 12 P Psychotherapy Invoice 02/07/23 PARENT 01 Q Group Therapy Invoice 02/07/23 PARENT 02 School Location Letter 08/05/22 PARENT 11 pages

S. Email Exchange between 08/10/22- PARENT Parent and [REDACTED] 08/17/22 02 pages

T. [REDACTED] 05/19/23 PARENT 11 Affidavit U [REDACTED] 05/19/23 PARENT 05 Affidavit

V. [REDACTED] Affidavit 06/05/23 PARENT 02 pages

On. August 25, 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 an [REDACTED] year old student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) District 15. The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about August 23, 2022. The Impartial was held on May 22, 2023 & August 16, 2023. A list of the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision. BACKGROUND The CSE recommended an Integrated Co-Teaching class (“ICT”) and the related services counseling, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy (all on a 10-month basis). The student attended an ICT class in a public school during the and 2017-2018 school years. The student did not make progress in ICT. Despite this fact, the CSE once again recommended ICT for the 2019-2020 school year, and again for the 2016- 2017 2020-2021 school year. (DPC). In this case, the Parents allege that the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) convened on June 08, 2022, to develop the student’s IEP for the 2022-2023 school year. The CSE recommended a placement in a 12:1:1 classroom, along with related services of occupational therapy (3:1 2x30), counseling (3:1 1x30), and speech-language therapy (3:1 1x30). The Parents did attempt to visit the recommended school from the District and they learned that [REDACTED] had in fact no placement for the student. (Parent’s Exhibit-“ U”) Accordingly, the Parents further allege that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2022-2023 school year. (Id.) The Parent initiated an independent Neuropsychological Evaluation that was performed on November 19, 2017 when the child was [REDACTED] years old and diagnosed the student with unspecified, anxiety disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and attentive type, moderate, language disorder, specific learning disability, with impairments and reading, specific learning disability, with specific impairments and written expression, developmental coordination disorder. (Parent’s Exhibit-G-13) The Parents also placed the student in a clinical research study and the Clinical Research Feedback Report (the “Child Mind Report”) was completed on November 19, 2019. The Child Mind Assessment largely confirmed the findings of the Neuropsychological. The findings were unspecified, anxiety disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and attentive type, moderate, language disorder, specific learning disability, with impairments and reading, specific learning disability, with specific impairments and written expression, developmental coordination disorder. (Parent’s Exhibit- E-23) The Parent also conducted a psychological and cognitive assessment report on May 28,2022. Specific Learning Disorder 315.00 (F81.0) – with impairment in reading, severe Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 314.01 (F90.2) – combined presentation. (Parent’s Exhibit-H-15) The assessment notes various recommendations for the student. (N-16) Amongst those recommendations are, Academic, parent, memory, sustained attention, organization and social emotional recommendations. (H 15-18)

At. the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: • Tuition reimbursement for the student’s attendance at the private school for the 2022-2023 school year. • Reimbursement/funding the student’s therapy by [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year at a rate of $250.00 per hour. • Reimbursement for [REDACTED] Day Camp for the Summer of THE DOE’S CASE The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted no documents in evidence. (T-31) 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 testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f]. The DOE was present at the hearing but chose not to cross examine any of the witnesses. (T-46) The Parent also submitted seventeen (22) 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 did not present any evidence to show that they responded to the Parents 10 day notice sent on June 16, 2022 and August 19, 2022. (Parent’s Exhibit B & C) DOES’ DEFAULT The DOE failed to submit any evidence or call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and did not cross examine any of the Parent’s witnesses. 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 2022 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 in this case to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. As noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parent meets her burden under Schaffer v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 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 401 pages

at. 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 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 other 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, [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 522 pages 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 year.

The Parents evidence shows that the student’s unilateral placement school provides individualized instruction to address the students’ learning disabilities.

The Student’s Progress Reports were also submitted into evidence and they show the students’ progress through their semesters for the and 2022-2023 school year. (Parent’s Exhibit- “M”) The student has progressed academically from the instruction provided at the student’s unilateral placement school. (Id)

The Parents evidence shows that the student’s unilateral placement school provides individualized instruction to address the students’ learning disabilities. The CSE Coordinator and Language Therapist, [REDACTED] at the student’s unilateral placement school, has noted their progress within their school. (Parent’s Exhibit-“T”) [REDACTED] testified on direct examination via affidavit as follows: 1. “I am personally familiar with [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is a sixth grade student this year. He started at [REDACTED] in September of 2020. I have observed and supported [REDACTED] during academic classes and unstructured times throughout his day. Additionally, I have spoken with [REDACTED] teachers and reviewed his 2022-2023 progress report (Ex. M) and 2022 psychological evaluation (Ex. H). 2. [REDACTED] is a kind, friendly and inquisitive student who requires individualized instruction in a small group setting. [REDACTED] biggest areas of challenges are in attention and executive functioning. He requires significant teacher support to transition between tasks, remain focused, and complete assignments. [REDACTED] is a curious learner who participates frequently but is often preoccupied with social matters. He regularly strikes upside conversations or silly exchanges with his friends in the class. During small-group activities he tends to get distracted from the task at hand. He benefits from reviewing directions with a teacher and sitting at the front of the room so teachers can provide him with verbal and nonverbal redirection. [REDACTED] also struggles significantly with executive functioning. He receives regular one-to-one binder checks during which he organizes his papers. He requires teacher reminders throughout the day to organize his papers. He has difficulty following multistep directions and benefits from directions being presented in a familiar chart. He also requires frequent teacher check-ins to discuss his plans for completing an assignment. 3. [REDACTED] participates in a small group (6 students), half year class SELf, which stands for Social-Emotional Learning forum. SELf class couples social-emotional learning (SEL) with our anti-bias curriculum. In SELf class lessons focus on individual and social group identity, diversity, discrimination and stereotyping, allyship and inclusivity. The lessons help students recognize and challenge bullying, bias, and discrimination in themselves, others, and institutions. Students are engaged in conversations preparing them to navigate a diverse and changing world by building empathy and social awareness. Classes in our SELf curriculum include additional programs with outside experts who teach the students about substances and addiction, healthy relationships and consent. While [REDACTED] struggles to use and formulate language about himself and his feelings, the SELf class has been able to provide him with vocabulary to help him express himself in the areas of identity, social relationships and self-advocacy. 4. While a student at [REDACTED], [REDACTED] has made steady progress in his decoding, encoding, comprehension, math and writing skills. [REDACTED] benefits from small classes, preferential seating near the teacher, opportunities for repeated exposure and practice of skills, multi-sensory modes of internalizing new information and skills, and frequent teacher focus prompts and OT supports to ensure engagement and attention to task. Throughout the year, [REDACTED] has demonstrated inconsistent relationships with his peers and teachers. With his teachers, he struggles to build a connection with them as he is unable to engage in backand-forth conversations. [REDACTED] has been more successful during unstructured times with his peers, however he exhibits difficulty understanding times when it is appropriate to have conversations. Furthermore, [REDACTED] continues to exhibit difficulty inhibiting impulsive thoughts as he will call out during class in order to make his peers laugh and get their attention. The support and strategies put in place by the counseling team and monitored by his teachers have been beneficial in helping [REDACTED] identify opportunities when these behaviors are expected vs. unexpected. 5. [REDACTED] academic progress is further detailed in Exhibit M which is a true and correct copy of [REDACTED] mid-year progress report for the 2022-2023 school year. 6. The progress report accurately describes [REDACTED] program, supports, curriculum, delivery of instruction, and progress so far this school year. 7. [REDACTED] receives Speech and Language Therapy once a week for a pullout session with [REDACTED], who has a master’s degree in speech language pathology, and 3 other students. [REDACTED] has targeted language skills that support his auditory comprehension, verbal expression and his critical thinking and supra-linguistic skills. During the language class, [REDACTED] benefits from one-to-one support due to difficulties with his stamina, as well as for his attention. When given these supports, he is able to be redirected and engage with tasks at hand.

8. [REDACTED] has also benefited from weekly push-in support from the language therapist during academic classes, in addition to his weekly small group pull-out language class. The push-in support is necessary so that therapy can be provided in the moment along with his teaching so it can be seamlessly integrated and implemented. The push-in is also important so [REDACTED] does not miss additional time in the classroom.

9. [REDACTED] also receives in-class occupational therapy from [REDACTED], who possesses a Master’s of Science in Occupational Therapy. During this time [REDACTED] works on strategies for focus, attention and executive functioning skills. These include using a standing desk and chewing gum. Even with the implementation of these supports, [REDACTED] continues to demonstrate inconsistent attention and self-regulation. The occupational therapist also provides indirect support by working with his homeroom teachers and the sixth-grade team to ensure carryover into the classroom.

10. [REDACTED] has also had access to the school-based counseling team on a consistent basis throughout the school year. [REDACTED] meets daily with [REDACTED], who has a Masters of Science in Education in School Counseling and NYS Certification in School Counseling or with [REDACTED], who has Ph.D. in Psychology and is a NYS Licensed Psychologist. Daily check-ins benefit [REDACTED] at the start of his day to ensure that he is feeling ready to learn and has everything he needs to be successful throughout his school day. [REDACTED] social-emotional needs are also met within the classroom as a result of ongoing, indirect support from the counseling team at [REDACTED] through the use of a chart and strategy card to monitor his regulation. [REDACTED] homeroom teachers, the counseling team and [REDACTED] family are in continual communication to discuss any concerns that arise, as well as strategies that are tailored to [REDACTED] individual needs.

11. Based on my knowledge of the program at [REDACTED], my knowledge of [REDACTED] teachers, my knowledge of [REDACTED] as a student and an individual, and my review of [REDACTED] evaluation and progress material discussed herein, it is my professional opinion that [REDACTED] is an appropriate placement for him for the 2022-2023 school year and that [REDACTED] is receiving an educational benefit from the program at [REDACTED]. He receives specially designed instruction, support, and services to address his needs. The support provided was consistent with the recommendation made in the psychological report (Ex. H). “. (Parent’s Exhibit-T”)

COMPENSATORY SERVICES

There is a request for compensatory educational services in this case, and an IHO cannot determine the amount of compensatory education that a student requires unless the record provides him with sufficient “insight about the precise types of education services the student needs to progress.” (Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008] citing Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005]) Pertinent findings to enable an IHO to tailor the ultimate award to the student’s unique needs should include the nature and severity of the student’s disability, the student’s specialized educational needs, the link between those needs and the services requested, and the student’s current educational abilities. (See Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005], see also Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008]) The Parent has the burden of “propos[ing] a well-articulated plan that reflects the student’s current education abilities and needs and is supported by the record.” (See Phillips v. District of Columbia, 2010 WL 3563068, at *6, 55 IDELR 101 [D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2010] quoting Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt (“Nesbitt II”), 583 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172, 51 IDELR 125 [D.D.C. 2008])

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

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

“We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is, therefore affirmed.” (Supra, III, ¶2) (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-

62 [2005] (emphasis added)

In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence in this case indicates the following:

After not presenting any case-in-chief and the DOE failing to appear: Parents witness, [REDACTED], the students private therapist, testified via affidavit on direct examination about the student’s need for compensatory educational services: (Parent’s Exhibit-“V”) 1. I am familiar with a student named [REDACTED]. 2. I saw [REDACTED] for individual counseling from July 20, 2022 through August 17, 2022. 3. Additionally, [REDACTED] attended group psychotherapy from September 30, 2022 through December 16, 2022. 4. [REDACTED] is diagnosed with ADHD and unspecified anxiety disorder. He also has a history of trauma, having suffered sustained [REDACTED] in school when he was in kindergarten. 5. During his individual sessions, we worked on [REDACTED] trauma history, his coping skills, and self-regulation. 6. I worked with [REDACTED] parents; supporting them, advising them about how to handle his anxieties and behaviors. 7. [REDACTED] benefited from individual therapy because he requires support around his anxious emotions as well as his anger and sadness. He also requires support around his impulsive behaviors. 8. For group psychotherapy, [REDACTED] was in a group of six children. 9. The program focuses on developing self-awareness, management of emotional responses, self-esteem, team work/collaboration, self-control, conflict resolution, making thoughtful decisions, and empathy. 10. [REDACTED] benefited from the social skills group because he struggles with selfawareness, impulse control, emotional regulation, problem solving, and asking for help. 11. I am familiar with the rates charged by my colleagues with similar qualifications for the same services in New York City. My rates are commiserate with my colleagues. 12. [REDACTED] attended five hours of individual counseling at a rate of $250 per hour. The total amount was $1,250, which his parents have paid in full. 13. [REDACTED] attended 10 hours of group social skills counseling at a rate of $125 per hour. The total amount was $1,250, which his parents have paid in full. “ (Parent’s Exhibit“V”)

The Parent also submitted evidence that details the Summer Camp the student went to and provided proof of invoice and statements that were paid by them. (Parent’s Evidence-N&O)

There is nothing in the record that supports 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 year 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 cost at the private school for the time the student attended the private school during the 2022-2023 school year within 30 days of the date of this decision; and it is further ORDERED that the DOE reimburse the parent in for the Summer Camp attended by the student in the Summer of 2022 upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of said services having been rendered and paid, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s private therapy sessions for the 2022-2023 school year at the rate of $250.00 per hour within 30 days of this decision. ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene after the completion of the student’s evaluations and consider all of the student’s evaluations and any other relevant information and produce an 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: November 03, 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)