New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 597582 - NYC: 246867

CASE NUMBER: 241952

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 241952

Student’s Name: REDACTED REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: Parent Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: November 10, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: January 12, 2023

January 27, 2023

February 9, 2023

March 16, 2023

April 19, 2023

May 9, 2023

Actual Record Closed Date: May 24, 2023

Date of Decision: June 6, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: N/A Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

January 12, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

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

February 9, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

March 16, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

April 19, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

May 9, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

REDACTED REDACTED, principal, REDACTED REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parent’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC") filed on or about November 10, 2022. Ex. A.^[1] On January 5, 2023, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education to hear this matter. Parent alleges that the Department failed to offer Yitchok a free appropriate public education (a “FAPE”) for the 2022-2023 school year and seeks reimbursement and/or direct funding for the costs of tuition and related services for REDACTED’s placement at The REDACTED REDACTED (“REDACTED”) and transportation for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. A.

I conducted a prehearing conference on January 12, 2023. Counsel` appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parent; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Counsel confirmed that REDACTED’s parent was seeking tuition reimbursement or funding for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year and discussed pendency and possible consolidation with another proceeding also pending for REDACTED. An Order Denying Consolidation was subsequently issued. The pendency hearing was scheduled for January 26.

On January 26, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parent; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. A pendency hearing was held, and Parent’s Exhibits A and B were admitted in evidence. Subsequent to the pendency hearing, the Department executed a pendency agreement (see Tr. 22), and a Pendency Order was not necessary.

On February 9, counsel for REDACTED’s parent appeared; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Parent’s counsel presented an opening statement. Evidentiary and procedural matters were discussed.

On March 16, counsel appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parents and on behalf of the Department. Counsel for the Department requested a continuance because she had only recently been assigned to this matter and sought time to prepare for the hearing. The request was granted, and the hearing continued to April 19.

On April 19, the Department rested its case without presenting the testimony of witnesses or offering documents in evidence but maintained that it challenged the appropriateness of the unilateral placement and that the balance of the equities favored the Department. Tr. 62-63. REDACTED’s mother testified, and Parent’s Exhibits C through P were admitted in evidence. The hearing was continued to May 9 due to the availability of the witness from REDACTED.

The hearing was completed on May 9 with the testimony of REDACTED’s principal and a closing statement presented by Parent’s counsel. The Department waived its closing statement.

The record closed on May 24 upon the Hearing Officer’s receipt and review of the transcript of the final day of the proceedings. Tr. 124.

Counsel requested extensions of the compliance date, and written Orders of Extension were issued on January 12, February 9, March 16, April 19, and May 9, 2023. The reasons for granting the extensions are set forth in the Orders.

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is now 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 New York State Education Law § 4404, and its implementing regulations, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 200.

REDACTED’s parent consented to the conduct of the hearing by videoconference and the transmission of this decision by email.

ISSUES

REDACTED’s parent requests funding for tuition and related services costs owed to REDACTED for REDACTED’s enrollment at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. At the hearing, the Department did not defend the special education program that it offered to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. The issues to be resolved are:

1. Is REDACTED an appropriate unilateral parental placement for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year?

2. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. REDACTED is an REDACTED-year-old young man who is eligible for special education and services under the IDEA and whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as learning disabled. Exs. A at 1, C at 1.

2. REDACTED is diagnosed with REDACTED, REDACTED (a REDACTED), as well as REDACTED. Exs. C at 2, 5; G; Ex. O at ⁋ 2. He demonstrates symptoms of REDACTED.

Exs. C at 2; G.

3. REDACTED experiences challenges with social skills, pragmatic language skills, selfesteem, processing information, attention to task, working memory, and academics. Exs.

C at 2-3; D at 1; E at 2-5, 8; G .

4. REDACTED attended a non-public elementary school and received SETSS and related services as recommended in CSE-developed IESPs. Tr. 88-89.

5. REDACTED enrolled in REDACTED in September 2019 because his learning needs could no longer be addressed in a mainstream setting. Tr. 71: Exs. D, O at ⁋⁋ 3-4.

6. REDACTED is a small special education school. The school enrolls students who need special education settings and provides small classes and individualized programming in order to prepare students for employment and life after high school with focus on academics, life skills, vocational training and social skills training. Ex. P at ⁋⁋ 1, 3-4.

7. REDACTED’s mother attended an IEP meeting for REDACTED on March 30, 2022. Tr. 72; Ex. C at 20, 22.

8. The CSE recommended that REDACTED attend a 15:1 classroom in a community high school and receive counseling (one 30-minute individual session per week and one 30-minute group session per week) as a related service. Ex. C at 15, 19; Ex. O at ⁋ 7.

9. By letter dated August 15, 2022, REDACTED’s mother informed the CSE that she had concerns about the IEP, that she had contacted the school proposed by the Department for REDACTED but had not yet heard back from the school, and that REDACTED, “subject to an appropriate recommendation from” the Department, would continue to attend REDACTED and she would seek tuition reimbursement. REDACTED’s mother also sought bus transportation from the Department. Ex. H.

10. REDACTED’s mother tried to reach personnel at the recommended school; after several weeks, someone from the school responded to her and informed her that the school was closed for the summer and referred her to the school’s website. Tr. 73-74.

11. REDACTED’s mother was able to visit the school in October 2022, which was the earliest the school was permitting visits. She toured the school and spoke with the assistant principal. Tr. 74-75, 77-78; Ex. I.

12. REDACTED’s mother sent a letter to the CSE outlining her concerns about this school placement for REDACTED. Her concerns were centered on REDACTED’s functioning, due to his anxity, in a school setting of 2,700 students and in a class of fifteen students.

Exs. I, O at ⁋⁋ 8-11.

13. During the 2022-2023 school year, REDACTED continued to attend REDACTED. He was placed in Regents level courses which were modified and paced to meet his learning needs. Across REDACTED’s programming, school staff provided individualized supports for REDACTED and accommodated, modified for, and provided interventions to address, his individual needs in the areas of anxiety, attentional needs, classroom behaviors, and social skills. Ex. P at ⁋⁋ 9-11, 13

14. REDACTED’s REDACTED program also addressed REDACTED’s need to develop functional and practical skills to prepare him for life after high school. Ex. P at ⁋ 14.

15. REDACTED was placed in a 10:1:1 modified Regents track class with students who were

17 and 18 years of age, all with learning profiles similar to REDACTED’s and working on approximately a ninth grade level. Ex. P at ⁋⁋ 14-15.

16. REDACTED’s schedule for the 2022-2023 school year included: arrival, prayer/electives; English Language Arts, science, history, career training, lunch, STEM, Judaic Studies, REDACTED language, physical education, health education, career training, writing, financial lieteracy, and the related services of speech and counseling. Ex. J.

17. During arrival time, students work on social skills and organization skills to prepare for the school day. Ex. P at ⁋ 18.

18. In ELA, REDACTED is working on a modified Regents curriculum paced to his individual needs; instruction is extended beyond the typical three-year time frame. Ex. P at ⁋ 20.

19. In science, REDACTED is working on material for the Chemistry Regents exam. Ex. P at ⁋ 21.

20. In STEM, REDACTED is working in a small group on projects combining art and computers, learning real world applications of engineering concepts. Ex. P at ⁋ 22.

21. In writing, Yitchok is working on textual analysis to improve his writing skills to write essays for history class, with focus on analysis, persuasion, and organization. Ex. P at ⁋ 24.

22. REDACTED learned to understand charts and graphs and to navigate spreadsheets to perform basic math functions and manipulate data. Ex. K at 1.

23. Review of the schedule demonstrates that approximately 18.55 percent of REDACTED’s school days at REDACTED are religious is nature. Exs. J, P at ⁋⁋ 18-24.

24. REDACTED received individual counseling for one 35-minute session per week and worked on reducing his distress and exploring interests after school. Ex. P at ⁋ 31.

25. REDACTED received individual speech therapy two times per week, working on goals in the areas of comprehension and problem solving. Ex. P at ⁋ 30.

26. REDACTED’s vocational placement was with a business that created 3D printed parts for police department body cameras. At this placement, he operated the 3D printer to produce the parts. Tr. 122-123.

27. At the start of the placement, he was accompanied by a job coach. When he was able to work at the placement independently, he no longer needed to be accompanied by the job coach. He was “contributing to the work environment” and was offered a paid position.

Tr. 123.

28. REDACTED made progress at REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year (Ex. K; Ex. P at ⁋⁋ 20-32): a. Improved reading comprehension and textual analysis; b. Improved writing skills, progressing steadily towards organizing and writing a persuasive five paragraph essay; c. Progressed in Chemistry, learning and understanding vocabulary and concepts; d. Progressed in history and improving his analytical skills; e. Improved independence in comprehension and problem solving; f. Improved computer-related data skills and 3D printing skills, which is important vocational training for him; and g. Developed technical and computer skills and obtained summer employment for himself.

29. While REDACTED has made progress with travel training at REDACTED, he has difficulty traveling independently by public transportation. His anxiety increases, he experiences somatic symptoms, and he trips often due to his gross motor weaknesses and instability. Tr. 82-83, 84.

30. REDACTED’s parents signed an enrollment contract for REDACTED’s attendance at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. L. REDACTED’s parents are obligated to pay the tuition amount set forth in the contract. Ex. L.

31. The total tuition amount for the 2022-2023 school year, including the costs of related services, is $98,000.00. Exs. L, M.

32. REDACTED’s parents have paid $9,092.00 towards the REDACTED 2022-2023 tuition and were, at the time of the hearing, financially unable to pay the remainder of the tuition.

Tr. 87; Exs. M, O at ⁋⁋ 17-18.

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., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121.

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 selected by the parents is not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). 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.

In this case, the DOE did not present testimony or documentary evidence with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Since the Department did not offer any testimony or documentary evidence to demonstrate that a program it had developed for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year was “reasonably calculated” to permit him to make progress given his unique circumstances, the Department did not carry its burden of proof and cannot prevail on the first “prong” of the Burlington/Carter test. Was REDACTED an appropriate placement for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year?

REDACTED’s parent bears the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central Sch. Dist., 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, REDACTED’s parent must show that the educational services provided at REDACTED addressed REDACTED's identified special education needs. See C.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68, 82 (2d Cir. 2014); C.L. v. ScarsREDACTED 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 Sch. Dist., 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. 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, 78 IDELR 2 (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 preponderance of the evidence establishes that REDACTED provided REDACTED with an educational environment in which his specific and identified special education needs were addressed. In particular, REDACTED addressed REDACTED’s need for an individualized program with modifications, supports, accommodations, strategies, interventions and related services to address his emotional, communication, social, functional, vocational and academic needs. The record is clear as to the extent of the individualized special education (including in the area of vocational skills) and other supports that REDACTED personnel provided to REDACTED. See paragraphs 6, 13 through 27, above. REDACTED made progress at REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year. See paragraph 28, above.

The evidence thus demonstrates that REDACTED provided REDACTED with an appropriate special education program. See, e.g., T.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 810 F.3d 869, 878 (2d Cir. 2016) (unilateral program appropriate when it meets child’s needs and child makes progress); F.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 522, 555-56 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (unilateral program appropriate when it provided instruction and related services individualized to child’s needs and which resulted in progress); see also, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-002 at pp. 16-19 (prong II burden met when testimony of school witness describes how school’s program addresses student’s individual needs); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-063 at pp. 14-16 (same); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-056 at pp. 18-22 (same). Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the Second Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that the program at REDACTED was appropriate for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’ parents? With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parent’s claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’ parent cooperated with the CSE by attending the CSE meeting, communicating with Department personnel about their concerns, visiting the proposed placement school, 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. ScarsREDACTED Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 840 (2d Cir. 2014). There is no indication in the record that REDACTED’s parent impeded the Department’s efforts to offer REDACTED a FAPE. Furthermore, REDACTED’s parent has an obligation under the contract to pay REDACTED’s tuition at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. A hearing officer may, where the other requirements of Burlington and Carter permit, order prospective payment to a school or provider (rather than reimbursement to a parent) because: (1) such payment is permitted by Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); and (2) it would be patently unfair to extend the protections granted by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington and Carter only to those disabled children whose parents happen to have the financial wherewithal to “front” the entire amount of the private school tuition, as in the instant case, and subsequently seek repayment from the school district. See also Ferreira v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 22 Civ. 4993 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 2023). While REDACTED’s parent is financial unable to pay the total REDACTED tuition (see paragraph 32, above), 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. Equitable considerations thus favor the award of relief to REDACTED’s parent. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the third Burlington/Carter criterion.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Department of Education shall fund REDACTED’s placement at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. The amount of funding for the 2022-2023 school year shall consist of 81.45 percent of 2022-2023 total program costs, in an amount not to exceed $79,821.00. Funding shall be reimbursement to REDACTED’s parents for the amounts that they have paid to REDACTED for REDACTED’s 2022-2023 school year program costs; and direct payment to REDACTED for the remainder.

2. The Department shall continue to provide bus transportation to REDACTEDfor travel to and from school.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 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

P-A. Demand for Due Process and Pendency 06 Pages November 7, 2022

P-B. October 31, 2022 Findings of Fact and Decision By: Impartial Hearing Officer REDACTED, Esq. 19 pages

P-C. Individualized Education Plan 22 Pages New York City Dept. of Education March 30, 2022

P-D. Diagnostic and Counseling Services Letter 01 Page By REDACTED, Ph.D. January 30, 2019

P-E. Psychoeducational Report 08 Pages By: REDACTED, M.S. Ed. New York City Dept. of Education July 24, 2019

P-F. Social History Update 01 Page By: REDACTED New York City Dept. of Education July 24, 2019

P-G. Letter 01 Page By: REDACTED, M.D. September 18, 2019

P-H. Letter from Parent to CSE 03 Pages (with fax confirmation) August 15, 2022

P-I. Letter from Parent to CSE 03 Pages (with fax confirmation) October 24, 2022

P-J. Student’s Daily Schedule 01 Page REDACTED REDACTED 2022-2023

P-K. Student Goals/Progress Report 02 Pages REDACTED REDACTED Fall 2022

P-L. Tuition Contract 01 Page REDACTED REDACTED 2022-2023

P-M. Tuition Affirmation 01 Page REDACTED REDACTED January 16, 2023

P-N. 2020 Tax Return P-O April 18, 2023 Affirmation of REDACTED (REDACTED) REDACTED 04 Pages P-P April 18, 2023 Affirmation of REDACTED (REDACTED) REDACTED 06 Pages 03 pages

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parent’s exhibits are identified with letters; Department exhibits are identified with numbers; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are labelled as “IHO.”