Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,452

Appeal of a STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY, by his parent, from action of the Board of Education of the Canastota Central School District regarding an impartial hearing.

Decision No. 13,452

(July 14, 1995)

Hogan & Sarzynski, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq., of counsel

SHELDON, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the failure of the Board of Education of the Canastota Central School District ("respondent") to provide him with a timely decision in an impartial hearing. The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner is the parent of a student with a disability who resides in the Canastota Central School District. On February 9, 1995, respondent received petitioner's request for an impartial hearing. A hearing was scheduled for March 23, 1995, but was adjourned at petitioner's request to April 1, 1995. Petitioner commenced this appeal on March 28, 1995. On April 1, 1995, petitioner requested another adjournment. The hearing was finally conducted on April 11, 1995, May 4, 1995 and May 26, 1995. The hearing officer rendered a decision on June 17, 1995.

Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to hold a timely impartial hearing in violation of federal and state regulations. Respondent denies that it improperly delayed this matter.

Education Law '4404(2) requires the review of hearing officers' determinations by the State Review Officer ("SRO"). Therefore, the issue of whether a decision was timely rendered is one that petitioner must raise before the SRO. While I may compel a school district to provide a petitioner with a hearing officer's decision (see Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 Ed Dept Rep 499; Appeal of Wenger, 33 Ed Dept Rep 711), in this case a decision has been rendered by the hearing officer. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to review the matter.

I must comment, however, on the fact that petitioner has filed and continues to file numerous appeals to me regarding the timeliness of impartial hearings. Several have been decided (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 Ed Dept Rep 500; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 id. 499; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 33 id. 711); nine others have only recently been filed. It is disingenuous of petitioner to continue to bring appeals challenging the timeliness of hearings in which he himself has caused the delay by requesting adjournment. Such filings are frivolous, mire respondent school district in unnecessary paperwork and do nothing to secure appropriate services for his child.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE