Findings of Fact and Decision, Case No. 294422

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 294422

Student’s Name: REDACTED

District of

School Location: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed., Dist# REDACTED

Impartial Hearing Officer: Alexander Fox

Date of Filing: May 9, 2025

Hearing Requested by: REDACTED (Parent)

Dates of Hearing: January 16, 2026

Record Close Date: May 4, 2026

Date of Decision: May 4, 2026

Time Sensitive: No

Names and Titles of Persons Who Appeared on January 16, 2026

For the Student:

REDACTED, Esq. – Parent’s Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Esq. – District Litigator

BACKGROUND

Parent, through counsel, filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about May 9, 2025.^[1] In the DPC, Parent alleges that the Department of Education (“DOE” or “District”) failed to provide Student with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 school years by not recommending an appropriate program and placement for Student in any of those years.

As relief, Parent seeks an order finding that the DOE denied Student a FAPE for the school years at issue and directing DOE to fund a bank of compensatory education services to be provided by a provider of Parent’s choosing.^[2]

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) for this case on May 13, 2025. I held a Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”) on June 16, 2025, during which a Due Process Hearing (“DPH”) was scheduled. I held a limited hearing on Parent’s request for Independent Educational Evaluations (“IEE’s”) on July 21, 2025. On September 5, 2025, I issued an Interim Order for DOE to fund evaluations in the areas of neuropsychological function, speech-language therapy (“SLT”), occupational therapy (“OT”), physical therapy (“PT”), and assistive technology (“AT”).^[3] The evaluation reports were completed in November and December 2025, and on December 2, 2025, I held a status conference at which a Due Process Hearing (“DPH”) was scheduled.

Both parties appeared for the DPH on the merits on January 16, 2026. Parent’s Exhibits A through H were admitted into evidence, as were DOE Exhibits 1 through 9.^[4] Both parties made oral opening and closing statements.^[5] The current compliance date for this case is March 3, 2026.

JURISDICTION

A decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law Art. 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § Part 200.

MOTION TO DISMISS – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

District submitted a written Motion to Dismiss Parent’s claims relating to the 2022-2023 school year on the grounds that those claims were time-barred by the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations.^[6] This case was filed on May 9, 2025, and DOE argued that Parent knew or should have known (“KOSHK”) the basis for their claims on December 1, 2022 at the latest, when Parent received the Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) regarding Student’s IEP dated November 22, 2022.^[7] DOE submitted evidence showing that the PWN was sent to Parent on November 29, 2022.^[8] DOE argues that Parent knew or should have known about their claim relating to the 2022-2023 school year when they received the PWN regarding the IEP and its recommendations, and since two years from December 1, 2022 is December 1, 2024, Parent’s should be time-barred from filing these claims in May 2025.^[9]

Parent did not submit a written reply, instead stating their position at the hearing.^[10]

Parent Attorney: [B]ecause the District has an ongoing responsibility to provide FAPE to the student, the continued failure to place the student in an appropriate placement to properly evaluate, to give them the right services, that extends throughout the entire year. So May and June of 2023 should still be encapsulated in this hearing request as part of the ‘22/’23 school year.^[11]

The IDEA and New York State Education Law^[12] provide an opportunity for any party to present a complaint related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child or the provision of FAPE that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of a complaint unless (1) the parent was prevented from requesting the impartial hearing due to specific misrepresentations by the school district that the matter had been resolved^[13] or (2) the school district withheld information from the parent or person in parental relation that was required under federal law to be provided.^[14] It is well settled that the date when the parent knew or should have known about the claim is a “fact-specific inquiry.”^[15]

Here, I agree with District’s argument that Parent’s receipt of the PWN for the IEP created on November 22, 2022, was the date on which Parent knew or should have known the basis for their claims relating to the 2022-2023 school year. I reject Parent Attorney’s argument that because of DOE’s “ongoing responsibility” to Student, any part of that school year that falls within the two-year limitations period should be “considered by this IHO.”^[16] This interpretation would render the entire notion of a KOSHK date virtually meaningless.

I find that the KOSHK date was December 1, 2022, when Parent received the Prior Written Notice. Parent filed this claim on May 9, 2025, and is therefore time-barred from seeking relief on claims arising prior to May 9, 2023. Neither of the exceptions to the statute of limitations described above applies to the facts in this case. Accordingly, District’s motion to dismiss Parent’s claims relating to the 2022-2023 school year is granted, and those portions of Parent’s DPC are dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

After a full review of the record generated at hearing, I make the following findings of fact and determinations. Although only portions of the evidence are referenced in this decision, all the documents were reviewed in full.

It is uncontested that Student and Parent reside in New York City and Student attends a New York City public school.^[17] Student is classified by the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as a student with a Speech or Language Impairment.

Credibility

In admitting the documents, I found them relevant, detailed, and consistent with the allegations in the DPC, as well as representative of the facts for which they were offered. I therefore credit all the exhibits.

Burden

The burden of proof is on the school district during 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, which is not the case here.^[18]

FAPE

Both the IDEA and the Education Law provide that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE.^[19] A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive Individualized Education Program (“IEP”).^[20] A school district has offered a student a FAPE when: (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through the IDEA's procedures and is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.^[21] To meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”^[22] If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE.^[23] School districts are obligated to provide the special education services listed in a student’s IEP.^[24]

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE.^[25] A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.”^[26] However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP.”^[27] “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.”^[28] The IDEA ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.”^[29] Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities.^[30] Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement.’”^[31] The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful benefit.’”^[32]

In actions brought under the IDEA alleging a denial of FAPE, “the court shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate”, limited only by the restriction that “the relief is to be appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.”^[33] Equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief, and the court enjoys broad discretion in doing so.^[34] Although an award of damages is not available under the IDEA,^[35] “a court may award various forms of retroactive and prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive remedies.”^[36]

District’s Position

With respect to its offer of FAPE to Student for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 years, District Litigator argued as follows:

District Litigator: [W]e don’t believe that obviously, a FAPE denial is required in order for a compensatory finding. The District didn’t bring any witnesses, and is sort of relying on its documents. . . I’m not going to concede FAPE for the school years at issue, but yes, we did not present any witnesses.^[37]

District’s evidence included two IEP’s dated November 14, 2023, and November 7, 2024, and their respective PWN’s.^[38] These documents, however, are insufficient by themselves to establish that DOE fulfilled its obligation of FAPE to Student. First, no School Location Letters were included in District’s evidence, so there is no indication that a placement was timely recommended nor that the recommended placement was appropriate. Further, without a witness to provide “a cogent and responsive explanation for [the CSE’s] decisions” in recommending the program and placement in Student’s IEP, there is not enough information to conclude that the IEP itself was appropriate.^[39] Therefore District, which bears the burden of proof and production, has not established that it provided Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years.

Student’s Needs

The evaluations completed pursuant to my Order of September 5, 2025, reveal that Student has a complex profile of delays and significant needs across all domains.^[40] Student has diagnoses of right frontotemporal epilepsy, developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Reading (Dyslexia), Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Written Expression (Dysgraphia), Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics (Dyscalculia), and unspecified Developmental Disorder of Speech and Language.^[41] As discussed above, Parent alleged that Student’s 2023 and 2024 IEP’s were inappropriate for Student and DOE has failed to rebut Parent’s allegation. I have reviewed the evaluation reports in full and make the following findings regarding Student’s needs.

Neuropsychological Evaluation

Student requires a high degree of individualized attention and intervention to address Student’s moderate to severe impairment in attention and executive functioning. Student is easily distracted, has trouble focusing, difficulty organizing materials and activities, difficulty prioritizing tasks, managing time, self-monitoring work for errors, and maintaining stamina and perseverance over time. Behaviorally, Student has issued with behavior regulation, avoids non-preferred tasks and has difficulty initiating tasks on their own. Student can be impulsive, fidgets with toys and other objects, and requires opportunities for movement. The evaluator recommended Student attend a full-day specialized placement that uses an evidence based, multisensory approach to learning across academic domains, with small group and 1:1 instruction. To address Student’s underlying learning differences due to Dyslexia, the evaluator recommended a structured literacy program based on the principles of Orton-Gillingham (“OG”), which uses a multisensory approach, explicit instruction, and a systematic focus on phonological awareness; the instruction should be delivered in a 1:1 setting for a minimum of 45 minutes daily. The evaluator also recommended CO three times per week for 45 minutes to teach coping strategies, build self-advocacy, and develop tools for self-regulation, as well as Executive Function Coaching (“EFC”) once per week for 45 minutes to improve attention and focus, build stamina and task perseverance, and develop individual strategies for working more efficiently and self-monitoring performance. The evaluator noted that Student experiences significant regression of procedures and academic skills following weekends and extended breaks, and for that reason Student requires extended school year (12-month) services as well as after school, at-home services to reduce regression of previously mastered skills and aid in retention of emerging skills.^[42]

Speech-Language Evaluation

Student has significant delays across the domains of cognition, language development, motor skills, adaptive functioning, and social development. Student demonstrated weaknesses across expressive, receptive, and higher order language domains, indicating a moderate language disorder. Literacy assessment revealed similar performance, with weaknesses noted in reading comprehension and written expression. Due to a cleft lip and palate, Student presents with severe articulation errors and pragmatic language deficits. These deficits significantly affect Student’s academic performance, communication effectiveness, and social interactions. The evaluator recommended that Student receive individual SLT twice per week for 30 minutes and group SLT twice per week for 30 minutes.^[43]

Occupational Therapy Evaluation

Student’s performance on standardized testing revealed high distractibility, low physical stamina, and hand weaknesses that impacted overall performance on manual tasks. Student has notable deficits in sensory processing and regulation, handwriting skills, motor coordination skills necessary for fine motor control and accuracy, manual dexterity skills, upper-limb coordination skills, executive functioning skills, and instrumental activities of daily living skills. The evaluator recommended that Student receive individual OT twice per week for 30 minutes and that academic instruction be delivered in a controlled environment to reduce distraction.^[44]

Physical Therapy Evaluation

Student has significant challenges in the areas of bilateral coordination, agility, and fluidity of movement with activities that require quick changes in direction. These deficits impact Student’s ability to participate effectively in activities of daily living, social/cognitive activities, mobility, and responsibility. The evaluator recommended that Student receive PT once per week for 30 minutes on an individual basis or in a small group of 2-3 students of similar physical ability.^[45]

Assistive Technology Evaluation

Student’s performance on formal measures of AT usage and instructional access indicated the need for assistive technology supports including text-to-speech, work predication, auditory feedback, and visual organization tools. These interventions aim to reduce the linguistic and motor demands of academic tasks, promote comprehension and written expression, and ensure equitable access to the curriculum. The report recommended a variety of applications and technological devices as well as training for Student, Parent, and Student’s teachers to understand how to properly employ the accommodations.^[46]

Collectively, I find the evaluations relevant, comprehensive, and highly reliable, and I credit the findings and recommendations therein. Each report laid out the methodology and performance measures used in the attendant evaluation and included a comprehensive academic, social, and medical history culled from numerous detailed evaluative documents. The evaluators were unified in their opinion that had Student been comprehensively evaluated and received appropriate services earlier, Student would not be presenting with the delays revealed in the evaluation reports. The evaluators each recommended that compensatory education services are warranted to attempt to place Student in the position they would have been in but for the DOE’s failure to timely evaluate and recommend an appropriate program. I note that District Litigator’s argumentation at hearing centered around the appropriateness and amount of compensatory education to be awarded rather than challenging the content of the evaluation reports themselves, and I therefore find that the reports are undisputed. The compensatory education hours are discussed further below.

IHO Discretion in Crafting an Award

Under the IDEA, courts can “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate,” limited only by the restriction that “the relief is to be appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.”^[47] Equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief, and the court enjoys broad discretion in doing so.^[48] Although an award of damages is not available under the IDEA,^[49] “a court may award various forms of retroactive and prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive remedies.”^[50] A hearing officer may award compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services when there has been a denial of FAPE.^[51] An award of compensatory services may be appropriate if a student has been denied appropriate services for an extended period of time, and if such deprivation of instruction can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation. An award of additional services should aim to place a student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA.^[52] Compensatory education can serve as a “replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place,” and any award “should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violations of IDEA[.]”^[53] Generally, there are two approaches to creating a compensatory education award. The Third Circuit follows a “quantitative” approach which focuses remediation on how many hours the student was denied FAPE and providing an award on an hour-to-hour basis.^[54] The D.C. Circuit and the Sixth Circuit take a “qualitative” approach which recommends an equitable approach considering both the number of hours the child was denied FAPE as well as other factors such as how many hours the child needs to place the child in the position he or she would have been in if there was no violation in the first place.^[55] The Second Circuit has not taken a preferred approach, opting instead as a general practice to “leave the mechanics of structuring the compensatory education award to the district court’s sound discretion,” so long as “the relief is … appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.”^[56] Under the IDEA, compensatory education awards can provide for direct payment to private providers.^[57]

Here, Parent’s request was calculated by multiplying the weekly service recommendations in the evaluation reports by the number of weeks in the extended school year, multiplied again by the number of years for which Parent is requesting relief. This calculation must be altered for two reasons: first, as discussed above, I have ruled that some Parent’s claims for the 2022-2023 school year are time-barred by the statute of limitations. Second, my concern in this case, as in any case that involves such a substantial award request, is that while the recommended programs would in the evaluators’ collective opinion greatly benefit Student, an appropriate award should aim to compensate a student for educational services not provided and not to “maximize the student’s potential or to guarantee that the student achieves a particular grade-level in his areas of need.”^[58] Second, the sheer quantity of program hours per week, which according to the recommendations would total over 20 hours of services, seems excessive for a student for whom focus, attention, and behavioral dysregulation are particular areas of difficulty. As the SRO has noted, “it would, for certain, be a pyrrhic victory if the delivery of an award of compensatory educational services only served to overwhelm the student or outpace the student’s ability to make progress.”^[59] Further, an award ordered without considering the nature of the FAPE violation to be remedied and the impact of the award on the child’s educational needs could ultimately do more harm than good for a student and may not promote advancement. An excessive award is also inappropriate because it may not promote advancement.^[60] “Common sense and experience teaches that 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.”^[61] I also take into account that while I credit the findings of the evaluators and the conclusions in the various reports, the recommendations for certain services which Student has never received, such as OT and CO, are of necessity conjectural and speculative.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that a reduction in the award requested by Parent is warranted as reflected in my Order below. Other than the relief set out in my Order I find nothing in the record to merit any further award.

ORDER

1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, DOE failed to provide Student with a FAPE for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 extended school years (ten (12) months), DOE shall fund as compensatory education the following banks of hours:

a. Special Education Teacher Support Services utilizing Orton-Gillingham or a similar evidence-based methodology (“OG/SETSS”), 840 HOURS (10 hours per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue) to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

b. SLT, 126 hours (3 x 30 minutes per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue), to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

c. PT, 42 hours (1 x 30 minutes per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue), to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

d. OT, 84 hours (2 x 30 minutes per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue), to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

e. CO, 126 hours (2 x 45 minutes per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue), to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

f. EFC, 63 hours (1 x 45 minutes per week x 42 weeks for each school year at issue), to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months;

g. AT Training, 28 hours, to be provided by a duly qualified and credentialed agency/provider of the Parent’s choosing at the rate paid by the Department of Education Implementation Unit for the same or similar services during the past 12 months.

3. ORDERED that DOE shall directly pay the agency/provider(s) for the cost of the equitable services described above within 35 days of receipt of the agency/provider invoice and an accompanying affidavit attesting that the services billed for were provided.

4. ORDERED that the bank of compensatory education hours described in Paragraph 2 above shall not expire until TWO YEARS from the date of this order.

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT within 45 days of the date of this Order the CSE shall reconvene and develop an appropriate IEP for Student which includes a special education program consistent with the Findings of Fact herein.

Dated: May 4, 2026

---

Alexander Fox

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.

APPENDIX A - EVIDENCE

DISTRICT EVIDENCE

EXHIBIT	Date	Description		No.
of
Pages
1	11/22/2022	Individualized Education Program (IEP)	23
2	11/28/2022	Prior Written Notice	4
3	11/03/2022	Social History Assessment	2
4	11/18/2022	Psychoeducational Evaluation	3
5	11/14/2023	Individualized Education Program (IEP)	23
6	12/18/2023	Prior Written Notice	5
7	11/07/2024	Individualized Education Program (IEP)	23
8	11/18/2024	Prior Written Notice	5
9	11/29/2022	SESIS Log	1

PARENT EVIDENCE

EXHIBIT	Date	Description		No.
of
Pages
A	5/9/2025	Parent’s Impartial Hearing Request	6
B	7/16/2018	Neuropsychological Evaluation Report	13
C	12/5/2023	Neuropsychological Evaluation	15

D	12/1/2025	Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation	57
E	11/3/2025	Independent Physical Therapy Evaluation	13
F	11/6/2025	Independent Occupational Therapy Evaluation	20
G	11/12/2025	Independent Assistive Technology Evaluation	18
H	11/12/2025	Independent Speech Language Therapy Evaluation	26

IHO EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT	Date	Description		No.
of
Pages
A	9/5/2025	Interim Order on IEE’s	9
B	1/9/2026*	DOE Motion to Dismiss – Statute of Limitations	6

*DOE’s motion is dated 1/9/2025, which is obviously a typographical error as this case was not filed until 5/9/2025

Footnotes

[1] Parent’s Exhibit (hereinafter “P. Ex.”) A

[2] Id.

[3] IHO Ex. i

[4] Transcript of 1/16/2026 (hereinafter “Tr.”)

[5] Id.

[6] IHO Ex. ii

[7] DOE Ex. 2

[8] DOE Ex. 9

[9] Id.

[10] Tr.

[11] Tr. at 7-8

[12] Educ. Law § 4404 (1) (a)

[13] See, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 [f] [3] [D] [i] and 8 NYCRR § 200.5 [j] [1] [i

[14] Somoza v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 538 F.3d 114, quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b) (6) (B)

[15] K.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108393, *52 [EDNY 2014]

[16] Tr.

[17] P. Ex. A

[18] Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2012)

[19] 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A); Education Law §§ 4402(2)(a), (b)(2)

[20] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9), (29)

[21] Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982)

[22] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017)

[23] Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381-82 (2d Cir. 2003; W.G. v. Bd. of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. No. 23, 960 F. 2d 1479, 1484 (9th Cir. 1992); J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(4)(ii)

[24] 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17(d)

[25] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i)

[26] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203

[27] Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189

[28] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001

[29] Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F. 2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989)

[30] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132

[31] Cerra v. Pawling Central School Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005), quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130

[32] Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001 [holding that the IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances”]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192

[33] Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 454 (2d Cir. 2015) [citation omitted]

[34] Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16 (1993)

[35] See Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 486 (2d Cir. 2002)

[36] Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 454

[37] Tr. at 22-23

[38] DOE Ex. 5 through 8

[39] See Endrew F., at 999

[40] P. Ex. D through H

[41] P. Ex. D

[42] P. Ex. C

[43] P. Ex. H

[44] P. Ex. G

[45] P. Ex. E

[46] P. Ex. G

[47] Id.

[48] Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16 (1993).

[49] Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 486 (2d Cir. 2002).

[50] Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 454.

[51] P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008).

[52] Id.

[53] Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2005); See also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that “[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act”).

[54] M.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996).

[55] Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 524.

[56] Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 454, 457; L.O. ex rel. K.T. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 125 (2d Cir. 2016); Student X. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *26 (E.D.N.Y 2008) (noting that “the Second Circuit has not articulated a test for determining how [compensatory education] services are calculated,” and awarding compensatory relief equal to the amount of time the student was deprived of services).

[57] Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., 2022 WL 1607292, at *3 (D. Minn. 2022), citing Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., 960 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (8th Cir. 2019).

[58] See Application of the Bd. of Ed. of the S.C.S.D., SRO 21-065

[59] Id.

[60] M.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 60 IDELR 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

[61] Id.; see also SRO 21-218