Decision No. 13,623
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. 13,623
(June 13, 1996)
Hogan & Sarzynski, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq., of counsel
MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges respondent's failure to provide him with a timely decision in an impartial hearing. The appeal must be dismissed.
Petitioner, the parent of a student with a disability, resides in the Canastota Central School District. Petitioner requested an impartial hearing on October 10, 1995, for respondent's alleged failure to provide services required by his son's individualized education plan. A hearing officer was appointed on October 19, 1995. The hearing was conducted on November 4, 1995 and concluded on December 30, 1995. This appeal was filed on February 12 1996. The hearing officer's decision was rendered on March 14, 1996.
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.
The authority to review hearing officers' determinations rests with the State Review Officer ("SRO") (Education Law '4404[2]). 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 id. 711), in this case a decision has been rendered. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to review this matter.
I must comment, however, as I have in the past, that 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.
I have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them without merit.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE