UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X N.B. and P.H., individually and on behalf of C.B.,
Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND OPINION -against- CV 24-4758 (AYS)
SACHEM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------X ANNE Y. SHIELDS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, bring this action on behalf of themselves and their minor
daughter, C.B., pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415, to appeal the February 23, 2024 decision of the New York State Department’s State
Review Officer, which found that Defendant, Sachem Central School District, offered C.B. a free
appropriate public education for the 2022-2023 school year. Presently before the Court is
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiffs oppose in its entirety. Having
reviewed the papers both in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court sustains and
affirms the State Review Officer’s decision. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is granted.
BACKGROUND
This case commenced with the filing of a due process complaint by Plaintiff N.B.,
seeking placement of C.B. for the 2022-2023 school year in the Defendant Sachem Central
School District’s (“Defendant” or the “District”) 8:1:2 Special Class at Samoset Midde School
(“Samoset”) as opposed to the recommendation by the District’s Committee on Special
Education (“CSE”) that C.B. be placed in the 8:1:2 Special Class at Sagamore Middle School
(“Sagamore”). (Gibson Decl. dated Apr. 25, 2025 ¶ 3.) An impartial hearing took place over the
1
course of five nonconsecutive dates from May 16, 2023 through June 27, 2023 before Impartial
Hearing Office (“IHO”) Sebastien Weiss, Esq. (Gibson Decl. ¶ 4.) By decision dated October 12,
2023, the IHO found for the District, determining that Defendant’s placement of C.B. was
appropriate based upon C.B.’s particular educational needs. (IHO Decision dated Oct. 12, 2023,
annexed to Gibson Decl. as Ex. A.)
Plaintiff thereafter appealed the IHO’s decision to the New York State Education
Department’s Review Officer (“SRO”), who, on February 23, 2024, found that the evidence in
the hearing record supported the IHO’s determination that the District offered C.B. a free
appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2022-2023 school year. (SRO Decision dated Feb.
23, 2024, annexed to Gibson Decl. at Ex. B.)
On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff, N.B., proceeding - pro-se, - commenced the within action,
alleging that Defendant failed to offer C.B. a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year based upon its
refusal to place C.B. in a special class at Samoset, her home school. (Compl., Docket Entry
(“DE”) [1].) N.B. amended her Complaint on December 9, 2024 to add her husband, P.H., as a
co-plaintiff. (DE [28].) No discovery was conducted and, on June 11, 2025, the District filed the
within motion for summary judgment. The facts set forth below are taken from the transcript of
the IHO hearing.
C.B. is a child classified with autism and has been classified as such since preschool.
(Transcript of Impartial Hearing (“Tr.”) 122-23.) C.B. has significant needs with cognitive
abilities in the extremely low range and has deficits in all areas of academic functioning. (Tr.
123-24; Impartial Hearing Ex. 26.) She also has receptive and expressive language delays and
her adaptive functioning is in the low range. (Tr. 124; Ex. 16.) C.B. is very internally distracted,
2
is sensory seeking and needs constant refocusing and redirection. (Tr. 319, 324.) Her eye contact
is fleeting and she engages in little to no social reciprocity. (Id.)
In school, C.B. does not engage in spontaneous interactions with her peers and her
interactions must be facilitated by an adult as she cannot function independently in a group
setting. (Tr. 94, 125; Ex. 14.) She has deficits in the areas of motor planning, sensory motor, and
fine and visual motor skills, and shows poor bilateral hand skills. (Tr. 140-41; Ex. 15.) C.B. has
significant impairment in her communication and social reciprocity, in her understanding of
nonverbal communication and in her understanding of relationships. (Tr. 318.) She also has
significant deficits with repetitive behaviors in that she engages in a lot of vocal stereotype,
script talk, and sensory seeking behaviors, such as jumping, clapping, flapping or bouncing. (Tr.
318-19.) Significantly, C.B. can only learn new concepts in a one-to-one setting in a discrete trial
format, which is a repetitive approach to teaching and learning where a student works on and
learns the same material repeatedly in a short period of time, takes a break, and then is
reintroduced the material again. (Tr. 125, 263, 319-20, 426.)
C.B. attended Waverly Avenue Elementary School (“Waverly”) within the District from
kindergarten through fifth grade. (Tr. 120.) Waverly was not C.B.’s home school. (Id.) C.B.’s
fifth grade teacher, Sarah Dayton (“Dayton”), testified at the IHO hearing that C.B. would sing
for a good portion of the school day, which distracted her, and that C.B. required individual
support to get back to what she was learning, causing difficulty completing tasks in a group
setting. (Tr. 440-41.) Dayton further testified that C.B. needs clear expectations and a structured
environment because she engages in self-stimulatory behaviors, such as singing or repetitive
movements. (Tr. 458; Ex. 31.) C.B. performs best when she has an adult in close proximity to
help her complete an academic task. (Tr. 458; Ex. 31.) In fact, C.B.’s level of need is so great,
3
she requires extended school day services of a teaching assistant (“TA”), four times a week for
one hour in the home, to reinforce the instruction of the school day. (Tr. 168; Exs. 3-12.)
During the 2020-2021 school year, C.B. was a fully remote learner at her parent’s
request. (Tr. 132.) During that school year, C.B. stopped physically attending school at the end
of November 2021 and did not return to school on a full-time basis until April 2022. (Tr. 129,
170-72, 323; Ex. 19.) During that time, C.B. showed no desire to leave her home for any
activities, recreation or entertainment. (Tr. 159; Ex. 19.) It was, in fact, difficult for C.B. to leave
her house in general. (Tr. 443.) As a result, C.B. refused to attend school. (Tr. 159, 322-23; Ex.
19.)
In January 2021, C.B. began home instruction due to a diagnosis of anxiety. (Tr. 159-60,
322-23; Ex. 19.) In response to her needs, in December 2021, the District added fifteen hours of
home-based parent counseling and training to C.B.’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”)
to assist her parents with getting her out of the house and to school. (Tr. 165; Ex. 8.) In March
2022, an additional fifteen hours of parent training was added to C.B.’s IEP because the parent
trainer had used most of the original fifteen hours, thus providing a total of thirty hours of parent
training to reintegrate C.B. into school. (Tr. 169; Ex. 9.) Also in March 2022, eight hours of
direct Behavior Intervention Services (“BIS”) were added to the IEP at the request of the parent
trainer. (Tr. 170-73, 335-37; Exs. 10, 19, 22.) C.B. returned to school full-time in April 2022.
(Tr. 170-72, 323.) The transition back to school was slow, consisting of about one and one-half
week’s process of slowly getting C.B. back into Waverly and re-acclimating her before she was
back for full school days. (Tr. 323.)
For the 2022-2023 school year, the District’s CSE recommended that C.B. be placed in
the 8:1:2 program at Sagamore. (Tr. 260-61, 450-51; Ex. 11.) Typically, Waverly 8:1:3 students,
4
such as C.B., attend the Sagamore 8:1:2 program as their next step, as it is the middle school
version of the Waverly 8:1:3 program. (Tr. 260-61.) The students who transition from Waverly
to Sagamore still require discrete trial instruction, highly individualized instruction, significant
behavior management, structure and minimal transition throughout their school day. (Tr. 450-51;
Ex. 31.) In addition, the general education peer buddies that C.B. enjoyed interacting with at
Waverly were all transitioning to Sagamore. (Tr. 260-61, 450-51.)
The Waverly building team recommends what program is appropriate for each student
and the CSE makes the final recommendation. (Tr. 128, 270, 460, 477.) Testimony from District
witnesses during the IHO hearing regarding the CSE recommendation of the Sagamore 8:1:2
program indicated that such recommendation was made due to C.B.’s skill sets and significant
needs in academics and management. (Tr. 182, 463-64.) In the Spring of 2022, when the
recommendation for the Sagamore program was made, a psychological evaluation of C.B. found
that her cognitive ability, her academic skills, and her adaptive behaviors fell significantly below
expectation. (Tr. 359; Ex. 11-9.)
The classroom program at Sagamore functions based upon the principles of applied
behavior analysis, including the use of discrete trial instruction for teaching new skills. (Tr. 463-
64; Exs. 11-10, 12-10.) C.B. requires extensive one-to-one instruction and students in the
Sagamore program are taught in individualized sessions with discrete trial program books and
they learn new skills in a very repetitive manner. (Tr. 268.) There are few transitions in that the
students utilize only two classrooms in an effort to simulate the middle school experience. (Tr.
268.) Staff remain constant and the students only move from one classroom to another right next
door. (Tr. 97, 370, 461.) The Sagamore classroom also has many items to address C.B.’s sensory
needs, such as a trampoline, sensory tubs with moon sand, water beads, Play-Doh and slime. (Tr.
5
441.) It also has community exposure and building exposure to the general population, as the
students gain ability to access same. (Tr. 207, 540.)
At C.B.’s annual review in May 2022, her parent requested that C.B. attend the Samoset
8:1:2 program since that was her home school and she wanted C.B. to be with students in her
neighborhood. (Tr. 362, 464; Ex. 11.) The CSE considered the request and discussed the two
programs. (Tr. 360-62; Ex. 11.) After a discussion of C.B.’s needs, the CSE determined that the
least restrictive environment (“LRE”) for C.B., and the environment that would provide the
appropriate academic support for her in terms of discrete trial instruction and individualized
instruction, would be at Sagamore. (Id.)
In contrast to the Sagamore program, the instruction at Samoset is almost exclusively
whole group and small group instruction, without any discrete trial instruction. (Tr. 203.) It is
departmentalized with English Language Arts, math, daily living skills, educational technology,
science, prevocational, chorus and music lessons. (Tr. 534-36.) Students at Samoset transition
each period into different classrooms with different teachers and the day is run on a forty-one
minute bell schedule. (Tr. 204, 590.) Within the first minute of arriving at school, the students
are ready to work. (Tr. 591-92.) Almost every period, the students at Samoset are in a different
room with different room numbers. (Tr. 589.)
In the Samoset program, the students tend to have more verbal expression with a higher
level of independence, so the adult support is not as intensive as in the Sagamore program. (Tr.
269, 372.) The role of the teaching assistant at Samoset is to prompt the students and to get them
ready during the whole group and small group instruction, as well as to work with the small
group. (Tr. 595.) The students can follow classroom routines, use lockers, follow their schedules,
and pack and carry their own supplies and Chromebooks. (Tr. 589, 592.) The students in the
6
Samoset program are also very social. (Tr. 596.) They work on conversation skills and initiate
play between each other and are very friendly, speaking to each other and initiating
conversations. (Tr. 596.)
Like the Sagamore program, the Samoset program also has community-based instruction,
but there is an emphasis on daily living activities, as well as trips to the grocery store and the
community twice per month. (Tr. 109, 211, 608-09; Ex. 42.) In the prevocational skills class at
Samoset, the students ran a coffee cart where they took orders from staff members, fulfilled
those orders and delivered them. (Tr. 596.) Students also worked in the mail room sorting mail or
putting mail in teachers’ mailboxes. (Tr. 597.) In addition, the class worked on filing and sorting,
as well as folding and sizing clothing items. (Tr. 597.) In general, once a skill was taught, the
students could perform the tasks independently, although some would still require prompting to
continue. (Tr. 596-97.)
During the IHO hearing, Waverly school psychologist, Julianne Hayes, opined that the
learning style of the Samoset program, coupled with its frequent transitions, would be very
challenging for C.B., both socially and emotionally, and that C.B. would struggle in that
program. (Tr. 379.) C.B. has difficulty with transitions and gets anxious moving through
hallways with a lot of students as it is over-stimulating and challenging for her. (Tr. 461.) Even
the provision of a one-to-one TA for C.B. in the Samoset program would not render it
appropriate for her because she would essentially be educated in a portion of the room alone with
the TA, separating her from the program’s whole group instruction. (Tr. 204-06, 213-14, 263,
373-74.) Such an arrangement would not only be distracting for C.B. but for the other students in
the class as well. (Tr. 214.) Even with an individual TA, the nature and structure of the Samoset
program would still not be as supportive as C.B. requires, and she would not be accessing the
7
instruction of the program. (Tr. 204-06, 373-74.) Socialization opportunities would be drastically
different as she would be working one-to-one with an adult as opposed to in a group with her
peers. (Tr. 599-600.) Academic discussion and vocational skills would also be different as the
program would have to provide C.B. with supplemental activities. (Id.) Such accommodations
would alter the heart of the Samoset program. (Id.) Alternatively, the District would have had to
stop the classroom transitioning of all of the students for C.B. to remain in the class. (Tr. 213.) In
effect, the District would have had to change the program to fit C.B.’s needs rather than the
needs of the other students in the program. (Id.)
As stated above, after hearing testimony over the course of several non-consecutive days,
the IHO ruled in favor of the District, finding that the Sagamore program was the appropriate
placement for C.B. based upon her particular educational needs. (Gibson Decl., Ex. A at 47.)
Upon the parents’ appeal, the SRO affirmed the IHO’s decision, finding that the evidence in the
record supported the IHO’s determination that the District offered C.B. a FAPE for the 2022-
2023 school year. (Gibson Decl., Ex. B at 15.) Plaintiffs then commenced the within suit and the
District moved for summary judgment. The Court now turns to the merits of the District’s
motion.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
In IDEA cases such as this one, “a motion for summary judgment functions as an appeal
from the SRO’s administrative decision below.” B.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 12 F.
Supp. 3d 343, 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation omitted); see also M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of
Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 226 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Though the parties in an IDEA action may call the
procedure a motion for summary judgment, the procedure is in substance an appeal from an
8
administrative determination, not a summary judgment [motion].”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). In determining the District’s motion, the Court
“is called upon to conduct an independent review of the administrative record, along with any
additional evidence submitted by the parties – of which there is none – and to determine by a
preponderance of the evidence whether the IDE[]A’s strictures have been satisfied.” B.K., 12 F.
Supp. 3d at 355 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)) (additional citations omitted).
“[T]he role of the federal courts in reviewing state educational decisions under the IDEA
is ‘circumscribed,’” M.H., 685 F.3d at 240 (quoting Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489
F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2007)), and has been characterized as “modified de novo review.” B.K.,
12 F. Supp. 3d at 355 (citation omitted). While the Court must “engage in an independent review
of the administrative record,” id. (quoting Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112-13), such review “is by no
means an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for
those of the school authorities which they review.” Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206
(1982).
Rather, “federal courts reviewing administrative decisions must give ‘due weight’ to
these proceedings, mindful that the judiciary generally ‘lacks the specialized knowledge and
experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.’”
Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 113 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 208). Reviewing courts are not
permitted to make “subjective credibility assessment[s],” and may not “ch[oose] between the
views of conflicting experts on . . . controversial issue[s] of educational policy . . . in direct
contradiction of the opinions of state administrative officers who had heard the same evidence.”
M.H., 685 F.3d at 240 (quoting Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir.
2003)) (alterations in original). Instead, courts must generally “defer to the final decision of the
9
state authorities, even where the reviewing authority disagrees with the hearing officer.” M.H.,
685 F.3d at 241 (quoting A.C. v. Board of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 171 (2d Cir. 2009)). However,
the SRO’s or IHO’s factual findings “must be ‘reasoned and supported by the record’ to warrant
deference.” M.H., 685 F.3d at 241 (quoting Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114).
II. The IHO and the SRO Correctly Held that the District Offered C.B. a FAPE
Upon review of the IHO’s decision, the SRO’s decision, and the transcript from the IHO
hearing, the Court finds that both the IHO and the SRO correctly held that the District
established that the 8:1:2 program at Sagamore was the appropriate placement for C.B. for the
2022-2023 school year, based upon C.B.’s particular educational needs. As the witness testimony
at the IHO hearing reflects, C.B. requires extensive one-to-one instruction, which is provided for
in the Sagamore program. Students are taught in individualized sessions with discrete trial
program books, learning new skills in a repetitive manner. There are very few transitions in the
Sagamore program and the classroom has multiple items to address C.B.’s sensory needs. While
Plaintiffs argue that the cohort of students at Sagamore was not appropriate for C.B., the
witnesses who testified for the District at the IHO hearing stated otherwise, testifying multiple
times that C.B.’s needs and learning style were similar to those of the students in the Sagamore
program.
The testimony provided at the IHO hearing established that the Samoset program is quite
different from Sagamore. The instruction is almost exclusively whole group and the small group
instruction does not use any discrete trial instruction. Students transition frequently between
classrooms and there is a higher level of independence than C.B. possesses. As the evidence at
the IHO hearing established, C.B. has difficulty with transitions and gets anxious moving
through hallways with lots of students as it is overstimulating for her. The learning environment
10
at Samoset would be quite challenging for C.B., both emotionally and socially, and she would
likely struggle.
While Plaintiffs argue that the provision of a one-to-one TA at Samoset would render the
program appropriate for C.B., the testimony at the IHO hearing established that providing her
with a TA would have only isolated her further. C.B. would have had to be educated in a portion
of the classroom alone with the TA, which would have been distracting for both her and the other
students and would have prevented her from participating in the class’s group lesson. Such an
arrangement would have altered C.B.’s socialization opportunities drastically. Moreover, if C.B.
was placed in the Samoset program, the District would have had to stop transitioning all of the
students in order for C.B. to stay with her class since she has difficulty with transition. The
District would have had to change the program to fit the needs of C.B., to the detriment of the
other students. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Sagamore program was the least restrictive
environment for C.B. and the District’s placement in that program was appropriate.
III. Plaintiffs’ Argument of Predetermination is Not Supported by the Evidence
Plaintiffs also argue that the District’s recommendation that C.B. be placed in the
Sagamore program was predetermined and decided without any input from Plaintiffs. This Court
agrees with both the IHO and the SRO that there was no evidence produced at the IHO hearing
to support such a claim. Plaintiff N.B. attended all CSE meetings and the testimony at the IHO
hearing indicated that the District explained both the Sagamore program and the Samoset
program to her several times, as well as the basis for the CSE decision that Sagamore was the
more appropriate program for C.B. Such discussions occurred in a meeting with the classroom
teacher prior to the May 24, 2023 CSE meeting, as well as during and after the CSE meeting.
The fact that individuals within the District discussed which program would be more appropriate
11
for C.B. ahead of the CSE meeting does not amount to predetermination. As the IHO correctly
held, it is not unusual or inappropriate for the District’s special education professionals to
anticipate what the correct placement recommendation for C.B. would be, especially in light of
the District’s familiarity with her.
IV. There is No Evidence of Bias by the IHO
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the IHO was biased against them and in favor of the District.
Upon appeal, the SRO held that there is no indication that the IHO demonstrated any bias in his
words or his conduct. After reviewing the transcript of the IHO hearing, this Court agrees with
the SRO. There is no merit to Plaintiffs’ claim of bias on the part of the IHO.
V. Attorney’s Fees
In their opposition to the within motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs request that this
Court award them attorney’s fees under the IDEA. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), a
court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party. See 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(B). Plaintiffs herein, however, are not prevailing parties. They did not prevail at the
IHO or the SRO level and they have not prevailed here. Accordingly, any request for attorney’s
fees is without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant Sachem Central School District
offered Plaintiff C.B. a free and appropriate public education for the 2022-2023 school year.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case.
12
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York March 25, 2026 /s/ Anne Y. Shields ANNE Y. SHIELDS United States Magistrate Judge
13