However, the CSE was not required to do so, and therefore, this cannot establish a procedural violation of the IDEA.” Y.N. v. Bd. of Educ. of Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 17-CV-4356, 2018 WL 4609117, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2018); see also M.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 14-CV-3455, 2017 WL 384352, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017) (finding no procedural violation where the CSE did not consider the evaluation in question because it was not “required to defer to the recommendations and evaluations proffered by the parents”). Accordingly, this argument of Plaintiffs is also unavailing.

First, as noted by Defendant, "[c]ourts in this Circuit have uniformly held that the CSE is not required to consider non-public placements after it determines that a public placement is available that has the ability to implement the CSE." M.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 14-CV-3455, 2017 WL 384352, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017). Thus, once the CSE determined that the District's ISP was an appropriate placement and was the least restrictive environment under which S.S. could be educated, it was not required to consider any more restrictive placement, let alone a private residential program out of state.

However, the CSE was not required to do so, and therefore, this cannot establish a procedural violation of the IDEA. See M.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 14-CV-3455, 2017 WL 384352, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017) (finding no procedural violation because the CSE did consider the evaluation in question and because it was not "required to defer to the recommendations and evaluations proffered by the parents"); S.W. v. New York Dep't of Educ., 92 F. Supp. 3d 143, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Consideration does not require substantive discussion, that every member of the CSE read the document, or that the CSE accord the private evaluation any particular weight." (citing T.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Ridgefield, 10 F.3d 87, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1993)).