Impartial Hearing Decision

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

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

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

[REDACTED] Attorney PARENT 04/20/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Mother PARENT 04/20/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Witness PARENT 04/20/23 (V)

[REDACTED] Interpreter PARENT 04/20/23 (V)

[REDACTED] DOE Representative DOE 04/20/23 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages Impartial Hearing Request 11/30/22 PARENT 06 pages

B. Individualized Education 05/18/22 PARENT Program 25 pages

C. Individualized Education 11/17/21 PARENT Program 27 pages

D. Individualized Education 12/01/20 PARENT Program 26 pages

E. Student Progress Report N/A PARENT for 2022/2023 School Year F [REDACTED] Learning 11/25/22 PARENT 04 Center Individualized Prescribed Hours G [REDACTED] Learning Center 11/25/22 PARENT 03 Student Academic Evaluation Results 04 pages

I. H [REDACTED] Learning 11/25/22 PARENT 47 Center Student Test Affidavit of Provider 03/30/23 PARENT [REDACTED] 13 pages

J. Affidavit of Parent 04/12/23 PARENT 06 pages

1. Due Process Complaint 11/30/22 DOE 07 pages DOE

2. Individualized Education Program 05/20/22 DOE 25 pages DOE

3. Prior Written Notice 05/22/22 DOE 04 pages DOE

4. Individualized Education Program 11/17/21 DOE 25 pages DOE

5. Individualized Education Program 12/07/20 DOE 26 pages DOE

On. January 19, 2023, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 pages

of. the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After having adjournments granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on April 20, 2023. A list of the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto. BACKGROUND This case was initiated as the result of a written Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed by the student’s Parent’s counsel, on or about November 30, 2022, and carried under New York City (“NYC”) Case No. 243092. The Parent herein alleges that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2020-2021, and 2022-2023 school years in that the parent alleges that the DOE generally failed to assess the child in all areas of her suspected disability. The Parents allege that the CSE failed to conduct a proper review for the student and make appropriate recommendations for their educational planning. The students last IEP was on May 18, 2022 wherein the IEP recommended a 12:1:1 class setting along with counseling and speech language therapy for the student. The Parent disagreed with the DOE’s recommendation. (DPC) 2021-2022

At. the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: (a) DOE to fund the costs of an Independent Neuropsychological assessment at a Fair Market Rate and any other appropriate assessments within thirty days and further amend the students’ IEP as warranted by the results of the assessment within twenty days of receipt of the evaluation. (b) An award of compensatory services in the amount of 875 hours to be provided by tutors at the [REDACTED] Learning Center at a rate of $110.00 per hour. (c) Reimbursement of $295.00 for diagnostic testing performed by the [REDACTED] Learning Center and $100.00 registration fee. (d) Transportation costs for the student and Parent to and from the [REDACTED] Learning Center. The Parents’ DPC having been duly filed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Notice having been duly given to the DOE; and The matter having come on for a final “impartial hearing” before this IHO on April 20, 2023, and this decision being made not on the basis of the submission of testamentary evidence pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f],and THE DOE’S CASE The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (5) documents in evidence. (T-18) 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 (2) witnesses testify on their behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f]. The DOE crossed both affiants. The Parent also submitted (10) 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. DOES’ DEFAULT The DOE failed to call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (5) documents in evidence. The DOE conceded on the record that they failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school year. (T-13) 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 c0ircumstances, 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 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 and the District to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. I find the parent’s testamentary evidence 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 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and school years and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief she has requested. GROSS VIOLATION A gross violation of the IDEA may result from the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time. (See SRO No. 04-074, citing Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990), Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 (2d Cir. 1988) and SRO No. 02-047. In Burr, exclusion from educational services for a substantial period of time was defined as “almost two years.” (See SRO No. 02-033 citing Burr “…after a severely disabled student's school was closed, prolonged delays in the administrative proceedings in obtaining a new placement resulted in a complete exclusion from any educational placement for the student for almost two years.” Here, the DOE’s failed to provide the student a FAPE for the 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. As such, I find that the DOE’s failure to afford the student a FAPE constitutes a gross violation of IDEA. 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 2022-2023 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, Parents witness, [REDACTED], testified via affidavit on direct. The witness is the Center Director at the [REDACTED] Learning Center and she testified about the tests that were conducted on the student at the Center and the student’s need for compensatory educational services: 1. [REDACTED] was tested at [REDACTED] on November 22, 2022, at which time we administered to [REDACTED] our standard battery of tests in order to determine her highest level of skill mastery, to identify any gaps in her academic skills, and to develop a program of instruction that would meet her needs. I administered the testing myself, and it took approximately 3 hours to complete. 2. Please describe the diagnostic testing evaluation you conducted of [REDACTED]. 3. Several tests were administered to [REDACTED]: the Slosson Visual-Motor Performance Test for Children and Adults, the Slosson Oral Reading Test, the Chall Phonetic Analysis, Rosner’s Test of Auditory Perception, the Burns and Roe Informal Reading Inventory, the STAR assessment (reading comprehension subtest), a writing sample, and a [REDACTED] Math Placement Exam. Exhibit F in this proceeding is an accurate copy of the results and scoring of said tests as maintained in [REDACTED] records. 4. What were the findings from the testing? 5. As a result of the above-mentioned tests, [REDACTED] found [REDACTED] to be operating more than four years below grade level in both verbal (ELA) and math skills. We found her to have significant gaps in her academic skills across all areas. 6. [REDACTED] was given passages at second-, third-, and fourth-grade levels. As noted in the Student Academic Evaluation Results, C752, (Ex. F-2), [REDACTED] performance was rated as “Poor” on all three levels of the test. She only answered 2 of the 8 questions correctly on the second grade test. On both the third and fourth grade tests she was only able to answer 1 of the 10 questions correctly. She missed every type of question, including main idea, cause and effect, detail, sequence, inference, and vocabulary. This result shows that [REDACTED] was not able to comprehend material that was four years below her current sixth grade level. Given the fact that this kind of reading and open-ended questioning is what typically takes place in the classroom, I would expect [REDACTED] to have difficulty participating in class. This also means that [REDACTED] must experience tremendous frustration when doing assignments for homework and on tests; difficulties that will not improve unless she is given an opportunity to remediate her skills. The program developed for [REDACTED] includes targeted work on the question types that she now struggles to answer. This performance also confirms that we need to begin [REDACTED] instruction no higher than first grade level, with an emphasis on decoding and comprehension, in order to ensure that she has successful experiences early on, and that we close the gaps that currently exist in her academic skills. 7. What if any conclusion did you reach about [REDACTED] academic levels from the testing? 8. Based on the totality of the testing, I would characterize [REDACTED] independent level to be first grade in both verbal (ELA) and math. 9. What, if any, recommendations do you have to remedy [REDACTED] deficits? 10. In order to remediate [REDACTED] deficits and allow her to reach sixth grade level, I have determined that it would take approximately 875 hours of one-to-one tutoring by a highly trained teacher such as those we employ at [REDACTED]. The C767 and prescribed curriculum required to reach this level of academic skill is set forth hereto as Ex. G. This number is determined by the [REDACTED] testing in math, reading, splinter skills, vocabulary, and writing detailed above. The recommended tutoring is necessary to allow [REDACTED] to make anything more than trivial academic advancement. 11. What, if any, program did you prepare to remedy [REDACTED] deficits? 12. The Individualized Prescribed Hours (Ex. G) identifies the skills to be worked on and some of the curriculum to be used to teach [REDACTED] the skills she is expected to have mastered, but which she lacks, and the number of hours that it will take to cover each of the skills that [REDACTED] is lacking. The Individualized Prescribed Hours was specifically prepared for [REDACTED] based upon the test results regarding her skill levels. The program is informed directly by the results of the evaluations noted above, and we begin, in each area where remediation is needed, at the student’s mastery level, and then build upon that level to close the academic gaps in a logical and sequential manner. 13. We have found that the combination of starting at a student’s mastery level in each skill area, and then building upon that in a logical and sequential manner, all while providing the student with immediate and constant access to one-to-one attention from the instructor to address any areas of frustration or difficulty, and having the ability to draw upon a multitude of curricular resources, has been extremely successful with students with disabilities such as those exhibited by [REDACTED]. 14. What if any program did you prepare to remedy [REDACTED] math deficits? 15. Given her results on the [REDACTED] Math Placement exam, [REDACTED] needs to master 48 math skills, which will take her approximately five hours per skill, for a total of 240 hours of tutoring in math. As noted in the Individualized Prescribed Hours, the verbal skill areas that are intended to be covered by the program are also listed, including instruction in phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, writing, study skills, and math. Splinter skills provide drills and practice in each component of reading comprehension, including main idea, facts and details, use of context clues, sequence, and inferential thinking. 16. What, if any, program did you prepare to remedy [REDACTED] reading and writing deficits? 17. [REDACTED] will begin her reading program at first grade level. She will begin with a core reader, which will require her to read a passage aloud, after which she’ll answer questions in a variety of categories, spending approximately twelve hours at each grade level from first to sixth grade. The splinter skills will isolate specific question types, such as main idea or inference, and drill them, starting at first grade level and moving through each grade level within about six hours. We expect to spend a total of 240 hours on reading comprehension. 18. The phonics instruction will begin with work on short vowels and consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words, and then move on to multi-syllable word decoding, to remediate the phonics skills she had not mastered on the Chall Phonetic Analysis. There are six volumes from the phonics series we chose for her, and an auditory perception piece, and three pieces of multi-sensory curriculum that we have found to be appropriate for use with students who have deficits in their understanding of phonics. We will spend around ten hours on each of the twelve pieces recommended, for a total of 100 hours of phonics instruction. 19. The recommended hours for vocabulary are based on [REDACTED] performance on the Slosson Oral Reading Test and the Informal Reading Inventory. She will spend at least ten hours per recommended word list, and we expect it will take up to thirty hours for her to complete the more difficult lists. The total number of hours allocated for vocabulary acquisition is 205. Vocabulary development will be an essential component of [REDACTED] program of instruction. Her vocabulary instruction will be done in such a way as to commit new words to permanent memory, as opposed to the more common method of short-term exposure and testing followed by moving immediately on to new words. At each session we’ll pick up the assigned word list where we left off the previous session, asking the student to pronounce and define the next word on the list. We continue down the list until we’ve identified three words she can’t define, at which point we put the word list away and pull out a dictionary. Rather than just copying the definition out of the dictionary, the student and teacher discuss the word and its definition until the student is able to articulate an accurate definition in her own words. The student then writes this definition on a flashcard. Flashcards are reviewed at subsequent sessions until the student has fully mastered the definition and usage of the words. The student is then expected to compose sentences using the target words for the day, and those sentences are edited for clarity and appropriate usage, as well as capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. 20. Writing is also part of the curriculum, to enable students to express their ideas clearly in their written work. Mastery of these skills allows students to meet expectations in class, to complete their assigned homework comfortably, and to demonstrate their understanding on both standardized and open-ended testing. Once [REDACTED] is able to read grade-level texts and comprehend them thoroughly, we will increase the amount of time we spend on writing. She will write sentences in conjunction with her vocabulary development at every session. Later on, she’ll begin to work on paragraph structure and language mechanics. We’ll spend approximately ten hours on each of the six pieces of writing curriculum recommended, for a total of sixty hours. 21. We have also planned for thirty hours of instruction in the area of study skills. We have found that students who are unable to read their assignments, or who read but don’t understand them, lack study skills because they are incapable of studying information they weren’t able to absorb in the first place. Once [REDACTED] is reading on grade level, we will spend about thirty hours helping her with techniques like note-taking and outlining, to help her improve not only her day-to-day performance, but also her ability to prepare for tests and to complete longer-term projects. 22. I believe that the hours estimated on the Individualized Prescribed Hours are necessary and accurate, and are designed to enable [REDACTED] to make meaningful academic progress. 23. Please describe the manner in which [REDACTED] teaches students. 24. At [REDACTED] we seek to identify what techniques are most effective in working with a student, and have found, for example, that using multi-sensory instruction is effective with many of our students, especially those who have identified learning disabilities. [REDACTED] has available to it an extremely wide variety of curricular materials to choose from when implementing a program for any particular student. Because the proposed sessions are one-on-one, our instructors are able to determine very quickly what strategies work, or do not work, for each individual student, which enables us to modify the instructional approach whenever necessary. For students with reading issues, we have multi-sensory materials to help teach phonics and decoding. Similarly, we have multi-sensory instructional materials for students with dyscalculia or other math-related learning disabilities. Depending on [REDACTED] response to instruction, we plan on using materials from all of our available resources in order to meet her instructional needs. We also employ a number of certified special education teachers on our staff. We have found that the one-to-one setting is particularly effective for students who need frequent redirection, clarification, or focusing. 25. I am confident that if [REDACTED] is given the opportunity to participate in the program developed for her at [REDACTED], she will be able to make meaningful academic progress, as well as to build up her confidence level, as she learns not only new materials, but also how to retain and build upon what she has learned when she is outside of the tutoring setting. The fee for the diagnostic evaluation at [REDACTED] is $295.00. The registration fee is $100.00, and tuition is billed at a rate of $110.00 per hour for one-to-one instruction. [REDACTED] is open seven days a week, in order to allow students the greatest amount of flexibility and opportunity in scheduling tutoring sessions. We will recommend to [REDACTED] parent that she attend as many hours weekly as is practical. We offer in-center and on-line tutoring, and request that the parent be permitted to set her tutoring sessions in either setting, as best suits the family’s needs. (Parent’s -I)

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT

I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

Whereas in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Parent has failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of the relief sought by the Parent, including but not limited compensatory education at an enhanced rate. (SRO No. 04-049); and Whereas there being nothing in the record that sustains a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the CSE; and Whereas the Parent’s testamentary evidence is completely uncontroverted and need not be repeated herein as they are annexed hereto for the benefit of the reader; and Whereas the DOE has failed to meet its burden under the law and the Parent’s submission clearly reflects that the relief sought meets the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary that permits the student to benefit from that relief. (Gagliardo & Frank G., supra); and Whereas the parties’ oral arguments, discussions, concessions, testamentary and documentary evidence and this order having been recorded and annexed hereto; and Whereas the DOE’s default constitutes a gross violation of FAPE and the completely uncontroverted testamentary and documentary evidence submitted by the Parent and annexed hereto supports the Parent’s request for relief; and Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED upon the DOE’s default and its tacit concession of denial of FAPE, for the school years of 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 that upon the DOE’s receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of said services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s receipt of Reimbursement of $295.00 for diagnostic testing performed by the [REDACTED] Learning Center and $100.00 registration fee.

ORDERED that within 20 days, the DOE to fund the costs of an Independent Neuropsychological assessment at a Fair Market Rate and any other appropriate assessments within 20 days and further amend the students’ IEP as warranted by the results of the assessments within twenty days of receipt of the evaluation. .

ORDERED upon the DOE’s default and its tacit concession of denial of FAPE, for the school years of 2020-2021,2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years the student is awarded Compensatory services totaling a bank of 875 hours in the form of tutoring sessions to be provided by tutors at the [REDACTED] Learning Center at a rate of $110.00 per hour, the bank of hours to expire within 36 months of the date of the order.

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund and/or directly pay for the cost of the student’s transportation services and costs for the student and Parent to and from the [REDACTED] Learning Center.

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this “Final Order” is found to be either resolved by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

Sharifa Milena Nasser

DATED: July 26, 2023

Queens, New York Sharifa Milena Nasser- IHO

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. (Rev. 07/09/20)