Decision No. 13,521
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. 13,521
(November 28, 1995)
Hogan & Sarzynski, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq., of counsel
MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner filed four separate appeals challenging respondent's failure to provide him with a timely decision in an impartial hearing. Because the appeals involve similar facts and common questions of law, they are consolidated for decision. The appeals must dismissed.
Petitioner is the parent of a student with a disability who resides in the Canastota Central School District. On July 9, 1995, petitioner requested four impartial hearings concerning respondent's alleged failure to provide services during the weeks of March 28, 1995, April 3, 1995, April 11, 1995 and April 24, 1995. A hearing officer was appointed on August 8, 1995. The hearing officer consolidated all the requests for hearings into one hearing, which was begun on September 8, 1995 and concluded on September 18, 1995. These appeals were filed on September 1, 1995. The hearing officer's decision was rendered on November 9, 1995.
Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to hold timely impartial hearings in violation of federal and state regulations. Respondent denies that it improperly delayed this matter.
Education Law '4404(2) provides for 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 can raise before the SRO (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 35 Ed Dept Rep 42; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 35 id. 30). 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 a Student with a Disability, 33 Ed Dept Rep 711), in this case a decision has been rendered. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to review this matter.
Petitioner has filed numerous appeals to the Commissioner regarding the timeliness of impartial hearings (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 35 Ed Dept Rep 42; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 35 id. 30; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 id. 500; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 id. 499; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 33 id. 711). Such filings are frivolous and mire respondent school district in unnecessary paperwork. I strongly urge petitioner to reevaluate his actions and redirect his energy to constructive efforts to secure appropriate services for his child.
THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.
END OF FILE