2014 WL 278405 (2d Cir. 2014) (served as amicus counsel) – The Second Circuit held that the school district failed to meet its burden to show how a 6:1:1 placement would be able to provide educational benefits to a student who required 1:1 instruction to learn.

694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) – The court held that a school district may only offer testimony that explains or justifies what is already written in the IEP – it may not “rehabilitate” or amend an IEP after the fact through testimony regarding services that do not appear in the IEP. In other words, testimony about what the district “would have” offered a student is impermissible. The court also held that failure to implement an FBA/BIP is a significant procedural violation.

2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88163 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) – The court held that a student’s pendency entitlements continue during an appeal at the district court level. The local educational agency (“LEA”) failed and refused to honor and implement the student’s pendency entitlements for ABA service hours and other interventions, and the District Court awarded the student more than a year’s worth compensatory services. Furthermore, the District Court held that the LEA was liable to pay attorneys’ fees and other costs.