L.O. ex rel. K.T. v. New York City Department of Education, 94 F. Supp. 3d 530

KT is a 19-year-old with autism and multiple diagnoses, educated in NYC since 2009 in a small, highly structured class with related services.
DOE’s CSE developed three IEPs (Dec 2009, Dec 2010, March 2011) proposing a 6:1:1 setting with continued therapies and an Alternative Assessment; each included a Behavioral Intervention Plan.
The IEPs continued speech, physical, and occupational therapy and relied on evaluative data from prior reports though not every report was explicitly cited in the plans.
KT began refusing to attend school in November 2011; plaintiff challenged the IEPs as not providing FAPE and sought various remedies, including compensatory services.
IHO denied plaintiff’s challenge and found the IEPs provided a FAPE; SRO affirmed the IHO; this action seeks judicial review under the IDEA with cross-motions for summary judgment; the court grants defendant’s motion and denies plaintiff’s.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the December 2009 IEP denied FAPE due to speech-language noncompliance	Plaintiff argues the IEP violated speech-language regulations and failed to address KT’s needs	Defendant asserts the violation was procedural and did not deny FAPE	Procedural violation but not a denial of FAPE
Whether the December 2010 IEP’s goals adequately addressed KT’s needs	Plaintiff contends goals were generic/overbroad and failed to reflect evaluative data	Defendant contends goals aligned with evaluative materials and KT’s needs	Goals were appropriate and adequately addressed KT’s needs
Whether the March 2011 IEP omitted goals addressing KT’s occupational/physical needs thus violating IDEA	IEP failed to include unattained OT/PT goals from December 2010	IEP continued therapy and included transition goals; omission did not deny FAPE	Procedural violation but did not deny KT a FAPE
Whether cumulative procedural violations denied KT a FAPE	Two or more procedural gaps could cumulatively deny FAPE	Deficiencies are formal and do not amount to denial when reviewed collectively	Cumulative violations did not deny FAPE
Whether lack of parental counseling in the IEPs violated NY regulations and denied FAPE	IEPs failed to include required parental counseling	Lack of counseling was procedural; parents already involved; not denial of FAPE	Regulatory violation but not a denial of FAPE

Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (definition of FAPE and IDEA framework)
Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (FAPE standards and review framework under IDEA)
Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (deference to administrative decisions; how IEPs are reviewed)
R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (prospective review of IEP adequacy; reliance on prior records)
M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (scope of judicial deference to SRO determinations; policy considerations)