NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 581927 – NYC: 233761
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name: REDACTED REDACTED
School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: Parent Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: September 7, 2022
Date(s) of Hearing: October 19, 2022
November 7, 2022
January 17, 2023
January 26, 2023
March 2, 2023
March 30, 2023
Actual Record Closed Date: April 19, 2023
Date of Decision: April 19, 2023
Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: N/A Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
October 19, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.
For the Department of Education:
None
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
November 7, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.
For the Department of Education:
None
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
January 17, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Paralegal
For the Department of Education:
None
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
January 26, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.
For the Department of Education:
None
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
March 2, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.
For the Department of Education:
None
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
March 30, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.
REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student
REDACTED REDACTED, Educational Supervisor, REDACTED
REDACTED REDACTED, Financial Administrator, REDACTED
For the Department of Education:
None
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parent’s Due Process Complaint filed on or about September 7, 2022. Ex. A.[1] On October 3, 2022, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education (the “Department”) to hear this matter. Parent alleges that the Department failed to provide a free appropriate education to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year by failing to implement IESP services for REDACTED and seeks funding for SETSS at an “enhanced rate” and related services for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. A. At the hearing, REDACTED s parent pursued only her claim for SETSS. Tr. 61.
I conducted a prehearing conference on October 19, 2022. Counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. At the prehearing conference, counsel for REDACTED’s parents clarified the relief sought in this proceeding and requested a pendency hearing. A pendency hearing was scheduled for November 7.
On November 7, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. A pendency inquest was conducted; Parent’s Exhibits A and B were admitted in evidence. I subsequently issued an Order on Pendency.
The hearing was scheduled for December 7 and December 21; Parent’s counsel requested adjournments of these dates. The adjournment requests were granted; the hearing was rescheduled for January 17, 2023.
On January 17, an advocate appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Parent’s advocate requested an adjournment of the hearing because REDACTED’s parent was unavailable. The adjournment request was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled for January 26.
On January 26, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Parent’s counsel requested another adjournment because REDACTED’s parent was ill and unable to participate in the hearing. The adjournment request was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled for March 2.
On March 2, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Parent’s counsel requested another adjournment because REDACTED’s parent was again unavailable. The adjournment request was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled for March 30.
On March 30, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. The hearing was completed: Parent’s Exhibits C through G were admitted in evidence; and witnesses testified. Parent’s counsel presented a closing statement.
Parent’s counsel requested extensions of the compliance date, and written Orders of Extension were issued on November 7 and December 21, 2022, and January 17, January 26 and March 2, 2023. The reasons for granting the extensions are set forth in the Orders.
The record was closed on April 19, 2023, upon the Hearing Officer’s receipt of the transcript of the last day of the hearing.
JURISDICTION
The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 300, and the New York State Education Law § 4404, and its implementing regulation, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5.
ISSUES
REDACTED’s parents seek funding for SETSS for REDACTED, who is parentally-placed in a non-public school. At the hearing, the Department did not present testimony or documentary evidence to defend its provision of special education services for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. The issues to be resolved are therefore:
1. What is the applicable legal analysis in this case, which involves a student parentally placed in a nonpublic school?
2. Do the SETSS provided by REDACTED address REDACTED’s special educational needs?
3. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. REDACTED is a [REDACTED]year-old young woman whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as learning disabled. Ex. B at 1; Tr. 65.
2. REDACTED attends REDACTED REDACTED, a non-public REDACTED mainstream school. She is in the REDACTED grade. Tr. 64, 75-76.
3. REDACTED experiences challenges with receptive and expressive language, language and social pragmatic skills, speech production, reading comprehension, and fine and gross motor skills, Ex. B at 1-2. She struggles with reading, writing, understanding math concepts, and handwriting. Tr. 67-69. Her reading comprehension is “significantly below grade level.” Tr. 77; see also Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 9-10. REDACTED also experiences difficulties following and comprehending classroom instruction. Tr. 77.
4. REDACTED received preschool SEIT services from the Department. Since kindergarten, she has needed support in school in order to learn. Tr. 64. The Department has developed
IESPs for her recommending SETSS and related services. Tr. 65.
5. The CSE convened on September 11, 2017, to develop an IEP for REDACTED. REDACTED’s mother participated in this meeting. Ex. B at 1, 8.
6. The September 2017 meeting was the last time that the Department convened an IESP meeting for REDACTED. Tr. 65.
7. The CSE recommended that REDACTED receive SETSS (five periods per week as a direct group service) and the related services of speech-language therapy (two 30-minute sessions per week, 1:1), occupational therapy (two 30-minute sessions per week, 1:1), physical therapy (two 30-minute sessions per week, 1:1), and counseling (two 30-minute sessions per week, in a group). Ex. B at 6.
8. The Department did not assign a SETTS provider to work with REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Tr. 66.
9. REDACTED’s mother signed a document labelled “Parent Agreement,” which was prepared by REDACTED and dated July 1, 2022. Ex. D; Tr. 66.
a. The document states that REDACTED will provide “SEIT/SETSS services at enhanced market rates.” Ex. D at 2.
b. The document does not state the number of hours of services to by provided to REDACTED or the actual cost of those services.
c. The document states that REDACTED’s mother is responsible for paying “the difference between REDACTED’s Pendency Rate and the DOE rate if REDACTED does not receive full payment from the DOE for these services.” Ex.
D at 3. Neither the “Pendency Rate” nor the “DOE rate” are defined.
10. REDACTED is an agency that provides special education services to students with IEPs and IESPs. Tr. 73-74.
11. By letter dated August 18, 2022, REDACTED’s parent, through counsel, informed the Department that it had not assigned a SETSS provider for REDACTED and requested that the Department to provide a SETSS provider for REDACTED. She also stated that, in the event that the Department did not provide SETSS for REDACTED, she would be seeking payment from the Department for such services “at an enhanced market rate.” Ex. C.
12. The educational supervisor at REDACTED testified via affidavit and in person at the hearing; the SETSS teacher employed by REDACTED to work with REDACTED did not testify. Tr. 72-73.
13. The supervisor is a certified general and special education teacher. Tr. 73.
14. The REDACTED SETSS teacher is a certified special education teacher. Tr. 78; Ex. F at ⁋ 8.
15. REDACTED provided four to five hours per week of SETSS to REDACTED as of November 2022. Tr. 75.
16. SETSS are provided to REDACTED on a one-to-one pull-out basis because REDACTED needs one-to-one support and because she would feel insecure receiving remedial instruction in the classroom. Tr. 82-83; Ex. F at ⁋ 13; Ex. G at 2-3.
17. During SETSS sessions, the SETSS teacher works with REDACTED on reading, writing, math, and comprehension skills. She does not work with REDACTED on any religious studies. Tr. 84; Ex. G.
18. In reading, REDACTED is functioning on approximately a sixth-grade level. The SETSS teacher has been working with REDACTED on reading high interest material to encourage comprehension and on answering “wh” questions; REDACTED is learning and practicing reading skills in order to be able to implement such skills independently, such as highlighting important information and annotating. Ex. G at 1. REDACTED needs, and the SETSS teacher provides, check-ins and prompting during reading instruction in order to maintain focus and ensure understanding. Id.
19. In writing, REDACTED is functioning on approximately a sixth-grade level. The SETSS teacher is working with her on improving her classroom notetaking, organizing her written work, and teaching REDACTED strategies for drafting written work, such as outlining, reference sheets, sentence starters, transitions, and paragraph starters. REDACTED is making slow progress in becoming more independent in producing written work. Ex. G at 2.
20. In math, the SETSS teacher is working with REDACTED on understanding word problems and keeping up with her class’s math curriculum through reteaching the material to REDACTED one-to-one. REDACTED is making progress in understanding math concepts. Ex. G at 2.
21. REDACTED pays the SETSS teacher $90.00 per hour for the services that she provides to REDACTED. Tr. 89.
22. REDACTED bills the Department $195.00 per hour for SETSS. Tr. 92-93.
23. According to the financial administrator, the Department pays SETSS providers $90.00 per hour. 95.
24. REDACTED has not billed REDACTED’s parents for any services it has provided to REDACTED this school year. Tr. 91.
25. REDACTED’s mother has not paid REDACTED for the services that it has provided to REDACTED this school year. Tr. 98.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education 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) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012); Application of a Child with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 06-121. A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d).
A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) the IEP developed by the district is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012). 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. The school district also must ensure that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled” that is, in the student’s least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131,143 (2d Cir. 2013).
The particular educational needs of a student with a disability and the services required to meet the needs must be set forth in a written IEP. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.P.R. § 300.320. 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 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2). The CSE then must establish annual goals related to the identified needs of the student and provide for the use of appropriate special education services in the IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2)(iii), (v). The school district must then implement the IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(e)(1), (3).
In New York, the school district bears the burden of proof in 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. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85. What is the applicable legal analysis in this case, which involves a student parentally placed in a nonpublic school?
In the instant case, I must consider that REDACTED is a “dually-enrolled” student, and, under New York State Education Law § 3602-c, parents of students with disabilities have the right and ability to select a nonpublic school willing to enroll their child, and places the burden of developing and providing appropriate special education programming upon the school district in which such school is located. The school district must develop an appropriate program for the student in the environment in which the student will receive his or her education (i.e. – the nonpublic school). Section 3602-c expressly states that a school district of location’s CSE “shall develop an [IESP] for the student based on the student’s individual needs in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP].” Education Law § 3602-c(2)(b)(1) (emphasis added). “The committee on special education shall assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district.”
Id. See, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 21-
245 at pp. 10-18 (description of districts’ responsibilities under § 3602-c and interplay with IDEA); Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 20-094; Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 20-087. See also Bd. of Educ. of the Bayshore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Thomas K., 14 N.Y. 3d 289 (2010) (relevance of individualized educational needs of dually-enrolled students).
Section 3602-c creates rights for parentally-placed students in New York that do not exist in federal law. See, e.g., Bayshore Union Free Sch. Dist., 14 N.Y. 3d 289; New York State Education Department, Guidance on Parentally Placed Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary School Students with Disabilities Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 and New York State (NYS) Education Law Section 3602-c September 2007 (“Guidance Document”); Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 22-046; Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 21-245; Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 20-094; Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 20-087. The message is clear: students with disabilities who are parentally-placed in nonpublic schools “must be provided services based on need and the same range of services provided by the district of location to its public school students must be made available to nonpublic students, taking into account the student’s placement in the nonpublic school program.” Guidance Document at Attachment 1, p. 11 (emphasis added).
The State Review Officer has looked to the principles of the Burlington/Carter line of cases to analyze parents’ claims for payment for services secured by parents for their children who are parentally-placed in nonpublic schools. See, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Office of State Review Appeal No. 22-046 at 9-10. Under the principles of Burlington and Carter, a board of education may be required to pay for education services obtained for a child by the child's 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. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school or services selected by the parents are not approved by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement or other funding for services. See Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). As a result, I proceed with the following analysis.
Here, the Department neglected to appear and elected to forego its opportunity to present testimony and other evidence to defend its actions. The undisputed evidence in the record demonstrates that the Department did not implement special education or services for REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year. As a result, the Department failed to meet its evidentiary burden. At this juncture, the Burlington/Carter analysis, as applied by the State Review Officer to parental requests for funding for services for their children parentally placed in nonpublic schools, proceeds with consideration of the appropriateness of the parentally obtained services and equitable factors. Do the SETSS provided by REDACTED address REDACTED’s special educational needs?
REDACTED’s parents have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the SETSS services that they secured for REDACTED. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
To meet the above burden, REDACTED’s parents must show that the educational services they secured for REDACTED address her identified special education needs. See C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 837 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E., 694 F.3d at 187; G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free School District, 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-046 at pp. 9-10. The Second Circuit instructs that:
No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. 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.”
Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 364 (emphasis added); also Bd. of Educ. of the Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist.
v. D.M., 831 F. App’x 29 (2d Cir. 2020) (Summary Order). Furthermore, as the Second Circuit held in R.E.: “parents may provide evidence that the child made actual progress at their chosen private placement to support the adequacy of that placement.” 694 F.3d at 187 n.3.
The record evidence as to the SETSS provided by REDACTED meets the Second Circuit’s “totality of the circumstances”/instruction “specially designed to meet the [child’s] unique needs” standards by the preponderance of the evidence. The REDACTED SETSS provider works with REDACTED to address her educational needs, specifically her challenges with reading comprehension, math concepts, and generating written work. While the quantum of evidence in this case is neither abundant nor detailed, there is sufficient evidence that the SETTS teacher is addressing REDACTED’s learning needs, teaching her strategies to improve her reading comprehension and writing, working with her to develop her understanding of her REDACTED grade math curriculum, and supporting REDACTED in developing her skills in reading comprehension, writing and math. The SETSS provider also works with REDACTED one-to-one in a location outside the classroom to promote REDACTED’s learning. With the support of the SETSS teacher, REDACTED is making progress.
As a result, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the services provided by REDACTED to REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year meet the Second Circuit’s “totality of the circumstances”/instruction “specially designed to meet the [child’s] unique needs” standard by the preponderance of the evidence. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?
With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parent’s claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’ mother cooperated with the CSE by attending CSE meetings and providing the requisite statutory notice. See, e.g., R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 195; M.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79181 at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013) (“equitable considerations” include parental cooperation with the school district, attending CSE meetings, and providing notice to the school district). “Important 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.” C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 840 (2d Cir. 2014). There is no indication in the record that REDACTED’s parents “obstructed” the Department’s efforts to offer REDACTED special education services.
Furthermore, under a Burlington/Carter analysis, services which are determined as reimbursable or fundable are reimbursed or funded by the school district “unless, as a matter of equitable considerations, the costs sought to be reimbursed are excessive or otherwise should be reduced, or, in the case of direct funding, the parent has not demonstrated a legal obligation to pay the cost and an inability to do so.” Application of a Student with a Disability, No. 21-245 at p. 17 (emphasis added). See also, e.g., D.A. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 769 F Supp. 2d 403, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Application of a Student with a Disability, No. 22-88 at pp. 11-12; but see Ferreira v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 22 Civ. 4993 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 2023) (parents need not demonstrate inability to pay).
(a) Are the costs of the services “excessive”?
The only evidence we have of the costs of the services are: (1) REDACTED bills the Department at $195.00 per hour; (2) REDACTED pays the SETSS teacher $90.00 per hour; and (3) the Department pays SETSS teachers approximately $90.00 per hour. There is no evidence as to the rate that REDACTED actually bills parents.
I find that $195.00 per hour for SETSS is excessive in light of the rates that REDACTED is paying to its SETSS provider and that the Department pays SETSS providers. The REDACTED billing rate to the Department is more than twice as much at these two rates. I exercise my equitable authority and, based upon the record before me, find that an appropriate rate is $125.00 per hour in light of (i) the rates paid to both the REDACTED provider and Department providers and (ii) the equitable consideration that the Department simply failed to implement REDACTED’s IESP, and her parents were compelled to seek SETSS services on their own.
(b) Do REDACTED’s parents have a legal obligation to pay REDACTED for services it provides to REDACTED?
In the instant matter, the agreement that REDACTED’s mother entered into with REDACTED states that REDACTED’s mother is obligated to pay for services that REDACTED provides to REDACTED if the Department does not pay for the services. The agreement is poorly worded and is missing important terms (such as the cost of the services, the services to be provided, and the number of hours of services). The only item that the document is clear on is that REDACTED’s parents are obligated to pay something for the services that REDACTED provides to REDACTED.
(c) Are REDACTED’s parents unable to pay REDACTED for services it provides to REDACTED, and is such an analysis required in light of recent Southern District precedent?
The proof of “inability” to pay is nonexistent (tax returns would be advisable), and it is concerning that REDACTED’s parent has not paid anything to date for services from REDACTED. However, there is a recent decision from the Southern District, which is precedent controlling in this matter, holding that proof in inability to pay is not necessary. See Ferreira v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 22 Civ. 4993 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 2023). Thus, an analysis and a ruling on REDACTED’s parents’ inability to pay is neither necessary nor appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Department of Education shall pay REDACTED for SETTS provided to REDACTED by REDACTED for the time period from November 1, 2022 through June 2023. The number of hours per week to be funded by the Department shall not exceed five hours per week. The rate paid for the SETSS services by the Department shall be $125.00 per hour.
2. The Department shall schedule and conduct, forthwith, a meeting to review REDACTED’s 2017 IESP and, if appropriate, develop an updated IESP for her.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2023
Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.
An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT’S EXHIBITS
A. Impartial Hearing Request 09/06/2022 6 pages
B. CSE IESP 09/11/2017 8 pages
C. 10 Day Notice 08/18/2022 1 page
D. Parent Agreement 07/01/2022 3 pages
E. Financial Affidavit 01/19/2023 4 pages
F. Supervisor Affidavit 03/20/2023 5 pages
G. Progress Report 03/10/2023 4 pages
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parents’ Exhibits are designated by a letter; the Department’s Exhibits are designated by a number; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are designated as “IHO.”