NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 589249 - NYC: 240325
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name: [REDACTED]
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed., District # [REDACTED
Impartial Hearing Officer: Roberta Wolf
Date of Filing: 10/07/2022
Hearing Requested by: Parent
Dates of Hearing: 02/10/2023, 02/17/2023
Record Close Date: 03/20/2023
Date of Decision: 03/20/2023
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
February 10, 2023
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Esq.
For the Student:
[REDACTED], Esq.
[REDACTED], Parent Student
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
February 17, 2023
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Esq.
For the Student:
[REDACTED], Esq.
[REDACTED], Neuropsychologist
[REDACTED], Occupational Therapist
[REDACTED], Speech-Language Therapist
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 7, 2022, the Parent, by and through her attorney’s law firm, filed a due process complaint (DPC) against DOE on behalf of the Student, under Case No. 240325, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)), Section 4404(1) of the New York State Education Law (Education Law), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1]
In the DPC, the Parent asserts that DOE failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years by failing to timely and adequately evaluate the Student and by providing substantively and procedurally deficient individualized education plans (IEPs) and placements.[2] The Parent specifically alleges that the DOE misdiagnosed the Student, failed to thoroughly evaluate him in all areas of disability, and created deficient IEPs that did not recommend Special Education Teacher Support Services, after-school tutoring, executive functioning support, counseling, and related services. [3]
Additionally, DOE never implemented the IEPs, nor did the IEPs contain sufficient or measurable goals that addressed all of the Student’s academic and behavioral delays. [4]
In relief, the Parent seeks: (1) a finding that DOE’s conduct is illegal and constitutes a denial of FAPE; (2) 1380 compensatory hours of one-to-one tutoring using Orton-Gillingham or a similar methodology; (3) 100 compensatory hours of trauma-based cognitive behavior therapy; (4) 690 compensatory hours of executive functioning instruction; (5) an assistive technology (AT) evaluation and training, or, in the alternative, funding for an evaluation and training at market rates for a provider of the Parent’s choosing; (6) 92 compensatory hours of occupational therapy (OT); (7) 184 compensatory hours of speech-language therapy (SLT); (8) no expiration date for any of the aforementioned compensatory services; (9) funding for all services at market rates and by the providers of the Parent’s choosing; (10) transportation to and from all services; (11) reimbursement to the Parent for any out-of-pocket costs associated with the Student’s education and services for the subject school years and through the date of this Order; and (12) a reconvene of the Committee on Special Education (CSE) to consider the recommendations set forth in the Parent’s independent educational evaluations (IEEs) and other evaluations in creating an updated IEP. [5]
I was appointed impartial hearing officer on January 3, 2023; held a prehearing conference on January 11, 2023; and adjudicated hearings on (1) January 20, 2023, wherein I granted the Parent’s interim request for IEEs for OT and SLT; and (2) February 10, 2023, and February 17, 2023, for the due process complaint.
At the due process hearing, DOE provided documentary evidence and cross-examined the Parent’s affiants, but affirmed that it would not defend that it provided the Student with a FAPE for either school year.[6] However, DOE contested the compensatory services sought by the Parent, arguing that the Parent never established the necessity for the award, let alone the number of hours requested, which it described as “excessive.”[7] The Parent’s case consisted of witness testimony (live and affidavit form) and documents placed in evidence. A list of exhibits admitted into the record is appended to this Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Student is now [REDACTED] years old and his eligibility for special education supports and services is not in dispute. He is classified with “Autism,” and presents with delays in reading, writing, and math, and also receptive, expressive, and pragmatic language, attention, organization, impulsivity, emotion regulation, anxiety, and with transitions.[8] He has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), [REDACTED] disorder, parent-child issues, unspecified mood disorder, and specific learning disorders with impairment in reading (dyslexia), written expression, and math. [9]
For the 2021-2022 school year, the Student was enrolled in DOE’s [REDACTED] Program, which serves students with autism in a classroom with general education students.[10] The Student’s class consisted of a small integrated co-teaching (ICT) classroom with one special education teacher and one general education teacher.[11] The [REDACTED] Program follows State learning standards and all teachers and related service providers are trained in specialized teaching strategies for students with autism.[12] The [REDACTED] Program also includes a Social Development Intervention curriculum development by New York University, which is an evidence-based program that supports students’ social-emotional development. [13]
The Student’s 12-month 2021-2022 IEP mandated: (1) an ICT classroom for Math, English/Language Arts (ELA), Social Studies, and Sciences; (2) counseling (one, 30-minute weekly group session): (3) OT (two, 30-minute weekly sessions, (individual and dyad)); (4) SLT (three, 45-minute weekly group sessions); (5) an AT device for reading and writing activities in the classroom and therapy room; and (6) transportation.[14] With respect to OT, the Student did not receive that service until March 2022 due to the lack of an available provider.[15] On March 9, 2022, DOE performed an OT evaluation and observed no significant difficulties in the areas of access/movement, activities of daily living, management of classroom tools and materials, and fine motor skills, but did note difficulties with pre-writing and writing and sensory skills for learning.[16] DOE recommended a modification to the Student’s OT mandate to remove the group service (due to distraction) and replace it with an individual session administered twice per month.[17] The IEP noted that the Student “made great gains in his reading,” but still performed at a second-grade level.[18] Similarly, for writing, the Student performed at a first-grade level; however, focus and motivation appeared to interfere with his progress. [19]
The Student’s 12-month 2020-2021 IEP mandated: (1) an ICT classroom for Math, ELA, and Social Studies and Sciences; (2) a 12:1+1 special class for Math, ELA, and the Sciences; (3) counseling; (3) OT (two, 30-minute weekly sessions, (individual and dyad)); (4) SLT (five, 45-minute weekly group sessions); (5) an AT device for reading and writing activities in the classroom and therapy room; (6) parent counseling and training; and (7) transportation. [20]
The Student’s diagnoses were determined as follows. In November of 2015, when the Student was [REDACTED] years old, the Parent arranged for a private neuropsychological evaluation which confirmed a diagnosis of ADHD with hyperactive/impulsive presentation. [21] That evaluation led to a recommended placement at the Therapeutic School.[22] On October 20, 2016, when the Student was [REDACTED] years old, DOE performed a psychiatric evaluation, which similarly diagnosed the Student with ADHD, [REDACTED] disorder with self-hurt and self-depreciatory comments, and parent-child issues.[23] The DOE evaluation also noted that the Parent was moving the Student to his sixth school in less than two years for a variety of reasons (e.g., the Student’s tantrums, aggression, and sexual comments, but also physical abuse and restraint by teachers).[24] On December 30, 2016, as part of the admissions process at the aforementioned Therapeutic School, the Student underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which reiterated the Student’s behavior challenges and diagnosis of ADHD, and mentioned the Student’s father, who similarly presented with ADHD, a learning disorder, and cognitive issues.[25] In October 2017, when hospitalized at [REDACTED] for ongoing behavioral problems, the Student again underwent a psychoeducational and neuropsychological evaluation.[26] That 2017 evaluation concluded that the Student continued to meet the criteria for diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and a specific learning disorder with impairment in reading.[27] As a result of that evaluation, the Student’s classification on his IEP was updated to “Autism” and services included counseling, OT, paraprofessional services, and a special classroom; however the Student’s aggressive behaviors continued.[28] Sometime during the 2019-2020 school year, the Student received a psychological evaluation, which indicated the Student’s “very high general intellectual functioning . . . characterized by strong verbal abilities and weaknesses in his processing speed.” [29]
Most recently in May 2022, when the Student was [REDACTED] years old, the Parent arranged for a neuropsychological evaluation, to assess his current neuropsychological functioning.[30] The neuropsychologist observed the Student over three days and noted his ability to perform more effectively when taking, rather than abstaining from, his prescribed medication.[31] The 2022 evaluation concluded that the Student continued to meet the criteria for ADHD and autism, but also met the criteria for unspecified mood disorder, and specific learning disorders with impairment in reading (dyslexia), written expression, and math. [32]
The neuropsychologist recommended that the Student receive the aforementioned compensatory services to “close the gap with [the Student’s] peers and ensure his ongoing progress.”[33] The neuropsychologist advised that the services would be crucial over the summer months and during school breaks to prevent backsliding.[34] He determined the specific compensatory education hours (1380 for tutoring, 690 for executive functioning, and 100 for trauma-based therapy), based on his clinical expertise in evaluating students with learning deficits and how much treatment they generally needed to catch up to peers. [35]
Additional evaluations for SLT and OT made specific recommendations for compensatory hours and repeatedly cited to the neuropsychological evaluation.[36] The SLT evaluation acknowledged that the Student’s 2020-2021 IEP recommended five weekly sessions, but nevertheless, recommended that the Student continue to receive three weekly sessions, plus 184 hours of compensatory services.[37] The OT evaluator recommended 92 hours of compensatory services in part because DOE failed to provide most, if not all, sessions during the school years at issue.[38] In November 2021, DOE contacted the Parent to inform her that DOE needed to make up 10 hours each of counseling and SLT with the Student before February 2022, but the Parent could not arrange for those sessions due to illness. [39]
ANALYSIS
The IDEA and the New York Education Law require a school district to offer a FAPE to each child with an eligible disability residing in its district who requires special education programs or services.[40] A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits; and (b) DOE complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA.[41] For a procedural violation, an impartial hearing 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 parent’s 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.[42] In general, an impartial hearing officer’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. [43]
FAPE Denied to the Student
A school district offers a student a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” [44] An IEP must include a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance; annual goals designed to meet the student’s needs resulting from his disability and that enable him to make progress in the general education curriculum; and provide appropriate special education and services.[45] “A reviewing court may fairly expect [DOE] to be able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of [his] circumstances.” [46]
In this case, DOE stated on the record that it would not defend that it provided the Student with a FAPE, and therefore, provided no explanation for how the Student’s 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make appropriate progress in light of his specific circumstances. I do not find that the IEPs, on their face and without additional explanation, confer a FAPE. Because DOE failed to provide any explanation, let alone a cogent and responsive one, for how the IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make appropriate progress in light of his circumstances, I find that DOE failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. [47]
Compensatory Relief Granted In Part
Compensatory education and services are equitable remedies tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case.[48] An award must be designed to “make up” for past denials of FAPE and place the student in the position they would have been had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA.[49] “[T]he inquiry must be fact-specific, and [in order] to accomplish IDEA’s purposes, the ultimate award 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.”[50] The compensation may take the form of supplemental special education or in related services, with the goal of fashioning appropriate relief for a denial of a FAPE.[51] It is calculated by either a “quantitative” approach (provided equal to the period of the FAPE deprivation) or a “qualitative” approach (provided as needed to address the student’s educational deficits resulting from the FAPE deprivation). Courts have noted that when the qualitative analysis is available, it can be the more “flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, [and thu]s more likely to address [the student’s] educational problems successfully.” [52]
In New York, when there is a lack of FAPE and the parent seeks a compensation award, the burden lies with DOE to “describ[e] its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate compensatory education remedy that would most reasonably and efficiently place the student in the position that [they] would have been but for the denial of FAPE.”[53] However even where DOE fails to offer its “position regarding the appropriate compensatory education remedy . . . an outright default judgment awarding compensatory education . . . and all of the relief requested without question . . . is a disfavored outcome [including] where the district’s conduct in denying the student a FAPE and in failing to actively participate in the impartial hearing process is egregious[.]”[54] The specific award sought, therefore, must be evaluated, because (a) “services that may be valuable for, or even critical to, a child’s educational achievement when provided in small to moderate amounts may become close to useless, or even burdensome, if provided in overwhelming quantity[;]”[55] and (b) “[t]he purpose of compensatory education is not to punish school districts for failing to follow the established procedures for providing a [FAPE], but to compensate students with disabilities who have not received an appropriate education.” [56]
Tutoring, Trauma Therapy, and Executive Functioning Instruction Denied
The Parent requests a bank of unexpiring compensatory services to include 1380 of individual tutoring, 100 hours of trauma therapy, and 690 hours of executive functioning instruction, which totals 2,170 hours, or more than a year’s worth of full-time instruction. The primary justification for the relief appears to be the Student’s dyslexia diagnosis which DOE did not discover and therefore left untreated.[57] However, the Parent had the Student independently evaluated at least four times between 2017 and 2020, and none of the medical professionals who performed those evaluations diagnosed the Student with dyslexia. Nor did the Parent’s neuropsychologist make any claim as to when the Student’s dyslexia should have been considered a suspected area of disability so as to trigger the requirement of a substantive evaluation. Separately, I give little weight to the neuropsychologist’s recommendations because he clearly calculated them in contemplation of a 10-month school year, as evidenced by the need for “crucial support” during summer months and school breaks to prevent regression. However, the Student attends school on a 12-month basis and already receives academic instruction and related services during the summer. As a result, I find the recommendations inappropriate here.
Remaining Services Granted in Part
The Parent’s request for 92 hours of OT is supported by the record and granted, as DOE did not provide that service for the majority, if not the entirety, of the school years at issue. With respect to SLT, I do not grant the full request of 184 hours because it draws from the neuropsychologist’s recommendations, which erroneously contemplate that DOE provides no services to the Student during the summer months of July and August. Moreover, the evaluator does not explain why the Student requires substantial compensatory SLT but she nevertheless recommends continuing the current mandate of only three, 45-minute sessions per week instead of the five sessions offered in the previous IEP. I note that DOE removed those sessions while acknowledging the Student’s continuing deficits in reading and writing, and performance far below his grade level.[58] I therefore grant the sessions that DOE removed: two, 45-minute sessions per week for 46 weeks, plus the 10 hours DOE offered to the Parent in November 2021 that she could not use due to ill health. I similarly grant the 10 hours of counseling that DOE failed to provide. Last, with respect to an AT evaluation and special transportation, the Student’s more recent IEP mandated both, so I order those as well.
Other than the relief set out in my Order below, I find the Parent’s remaining contentions to be unnecessary to this decision, without merit, beyond my jurisdiction, or without sufficient basis in the record for a finding. As a result, any relief not specifically discussed in this decision is denied, and all of the Parent’s remaining claims not discussed herein are dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, it is HEREBY:
1. ORDERED that the Student is entitled to receive 92 hours of Occupational Therapy, administered individually (1:1) in 30-minute sessions.
2. FURTHER ORDERED that, DOE shall fund the Student’s OT sessions at market rate, as determined by DOE’s Implementation Unit, and shall issue payment directly to the provider of the Parent’s choosing within 30 days of submission of a copy of the invoice. This bank of compensatory OT services shall not expire for two years from the date of this Order.
3. FURTHER ORDERED that the Student is entitled to receive 79 hours of Speech-Language Therapy, to be administered in a group setting, in 45-minute sessions.
4. FURTHER ORDERED that, DOE shall fund the Student’s SLT sessions at market rate as determined by DOE’s Implementation Unit, and shall issue payment directly to the provider of the Parent’s choosing within 30 days of submission of a copy of the invoice. This bank of compensatory SLT services shall not expire for two years from the date of this Order.
5. FURTHER ORDERED that the Student is entitled to receive 10 hours of counseling, administered in a group setting, in 30-minute sessions.
6. FURTHER ORDERED that, DOE shall, at the Parent’s preference, provide or fund the Student’s counseling sessions at market rate as determined by DOE’s Implementation Unit, and shall issue payment directly to the provider of the Parent’s choosing within 30 days of submission of a copy of the invoice. This bank of compensatory counseling services shall not expire for two years from the date of this order.
7. FURTHER ORDERED that DOE shall provide an AT evaluation for the Student within 30 days of receipt of this Order.
8. FURTHER ORDERED that DOE shall provide the Student with door-to-door, special transportation, with limited travel time to and from all services.
9. FURTHER ORDERED that the CSE shall meet within 14 school days after the Student’s IEEs (neuropsychological, OT, SLT, AT) have been made available to the District, to evaluate the new data and decide what changes, if any, are appropriate to the Student’s IEP.
10. FURTHER ORDERED that the Parent’s remaining claims are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 20, 2023
/s/ Roberta Wolf, Esq, Impartial Hearing Officer
Roberta Wolf
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.
DISTRICT EVIDENCE
1. Due Process Complaint 10/06/2022 2 -3 -4 - 11 pages DOE
5. Occupational Therapy Evaluation 03/09/2022 6 -7 - 9 pages DOE
PARENT EVIDENCE
A. [REDACTED]; Confidential Neuropsychological And Educational Evaluation 05/2022 18 pages
B. Final Report Card 2020-21 Term 1 Undated 2 pages
C. Report Card 1, 2021-2022, Term 1 Undated 2 pages
D. DOE AT Evaluation 02/15/2018 8 pages
E. DOE AT Evaluation Follow Up 04/17/2018 5 pages
F. [REDACTED] Psychiatric Eval 12/30/2016 4 pages
G. Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 05/7/2020 26 pages
H. Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 04/26/2021 25 pages
I. DOE Psychiatric Evaluation 10/20/2016 5 pages
J. [REDACTED] Neuropsychological Evaluation 11/17/2015 11/11/2015 14 pages
K. [REDACTED] letter 10/18/2016 2 pages
L. Affidavit of [REDACTED] M -- 02/03/2023 11 pages
N. Affidavit of [REDACTED], Psy.D Undated 14 pages
O. Affidavit of [REDACTED], M.S. OTR/L 2/16/2023 6 pages
P. [REDACTED] Speech Services Speech and Language Evaluation 1/28/2023 23 pages
Q. [REDACTED] Speech Services Occupational Therapy Evaluation 1/28/2023 25 pages
R. Affidavit of [REDACTED], M.S/CCC-SLP 2/13/2023 3 pages
Footnotes
[1] Ex. 1.
[2] Id. The Parent also alleges that DOE adopted and implemented systemic policies (under the IDEA, Section 504, and 42 U.S.C. 1983) that discriminated against the Student; however, systemic claims cannot be addressed via administrative procedures and the exhaustion requirement is excused on the basis of futility. J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, 112-113 (2d Cir. 2004)); see also Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 489 (2d Cir. 2002).
[3] Ex. 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id; February 17, 2023 Tr. p. 75 lines 10-25; 76 lines 1-2.
[6] February 10, 2023 Tr. p. 47 lines 22-25; 48 lines 1-10.
[7] February 17, 2023 Tr. p. 74 lines 5-25; 75 lines 1-6.
[8] Ex. A, F-I.
[9] Ex. I, J.
[10] Ex. Q-1.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Ex. H-16, H-17, H-21.
[15] Ex. 5-1.
[16] Ex. 5.
[17] Ex. 5-8.
[18] Ex. H-1.
[19] Id.
[20] Ex. G-17-G-19; G-22.
[21] Ex. J.
[22] Ex. K.
[23] Ex. I.
[24] Id.
[25] Ex. F-2.
[26] Ex. A-3.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Ex. A-8.
[31] Ex. A-4, A-9.
[32] Ex. A-9, A-10.
[33] Ex. A-13.
[34] Id.
[35] February 17, 2023, Tr. p. 57 lines 21-25; 58 lines 1-8.
[36] Ex. P, Q.
[37] Ex. P-2, P-20.
[38] Ex. L7-L9; Q-21, Q-22.
[39] L-10.
[40] 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(1)(A); Education Law §§ 4402(2)(a), (b)(2).
[41] Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005).
[42] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
[43] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i).
[44] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
[45] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(v); see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 06- 029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02- 014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9.
[46] Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. at 1002 (2017).
[47] I further find that the Parent’s Section 504 claim is subsumed by the above IDEA analysis. The Parent did not identify any distinct regulatory requirement under Section 504 that is not subsumed; therefore, I will not separately analyze 504 claims raised in the DPC.
[48] See Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
[49] P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008).
[50] Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that compensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act).
[51] See E.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 123.
[52] Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2007).
[53] Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-004; see also M.M. v. NYC Dep’t of Educ., 2017 WL 1194685, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017); Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); E. Lyme, 790 F.3d at 457; and Reid, 401 F.3d at 524.
[54] Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-004 (citing Branham v. Govt. of the Dist. of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
[55] M.M. v. NYC Dep’t of Educ., 2017 WL 1194685, at *8, supra.
[56] C.W. v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 395 Fed. App’x 824, 838 (3d Cir. 2010).
[57] Ex. A-13, P-5, P-20, 1-2, 1-5; February 10, 2023 Tr. p. 49 lines 8-12; 50 lines 3-9; February 17, 2023, Tr. p. 50 lines 23-25; 51 lines 1-3.
[58] Ex. H-1.