New York Public Personnel Law

Plaintiff held to have waived any right to personally proceed with his grievance once he authorized his Union to handle the grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement

2026-10-02T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff appealed a Federal District Court’s dismissal of his complaint against International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Teamsters Local Union No. 210 [collectively herein "Union"] and United Airlines, Inc. [United] for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff had secured the Union’s representation to challenge his termination from his job as an airline technician for United Airlines but after advocating for his claim through the initial steps of the contract grievance procedure, Union concluded that Plaintiff's grievance was not meritorious and declined to pursue it further.

In his appeal before the U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [Second Circuit], Plaintiff argued that the District Court erred in determining that he did not separately have the individual right to pursue that grievance in arbitration pursuant to the Railway Labor Act [RLA], 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., after the Union declined to go beyond the initial steps it had taken on behalf of Plaintiff after deciding Plaintiff's grievance lacked merit.

Plaintiff had been employed by United for almost 25 years prior to his being fired for timekeeping violations on June 11, 2024. During his employment, Plaintiff was a member of IBT’s affiliated local union, Local 210. The IBT and Local 210 constitutions contain substantially similar language regarding the relationship between a Union member and the Union for purposes of employment grievances whereby the Union and its officers, business representatives, and agents may decline to process any grievance, complaint, difficulty, or dispute if in their reasonable judgment such grievance, complaint, or dispute lacks merit.

Under the terms of the relevant CBA, “[i]f the decision of the Company’s representative is not acceptable to the Union, the decision may be appealed by the Union to the System Board of Adjustment,” which is composed of two members designated by United and two members designated by the Union. After Plaintiff’s termination, the Union filed a grievance with United on his behalf pursuant to the relevant CBA’s grievance procedures. The grievance form, signed by Plaintiff states, “I hereby authorize the Union to settle my grievance as they deem proper, and I agree to accept and be bound by the settlement agreed to by the Union or its designees.”

The Union subsequently notified Plaintiff that after a “full legal review” of Plaintiff’s grievance, and “based on [the Union’s] attorney’s legal opinion that any grievance on behalf of [Plaintiff] will be denied and unlikely to be sustained in a board of arbitration,” the Union “declined to pursue this grievance.”

Plaintiff next filed the instant lawsuit, seeking;

(1) A declaratory judgment that, as an airline employee, he has the right to arbitrate his grievance as an individual, with or without the Union’s participation; and

2) An order compelling such arbitration before a single arbitrator.

In granting Unions’ motions to dismiss the District Court concluded that the RLA does not provide an individual right for airline employees to arbitrate a grievance and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint.

Union had contended that the RLA provides no such right and, even if it did, Plaintiff waived it by entrusting the Union to settle his grievance in this case. The Second Circuit said it agreed with the Union, also concluding that Plaintiff waived any such right to individually pursue his grievance in this case by ceding it to the Union.

In the words of the Second Circuit: "we conclude that [Plaintiff ceded his grievance authority to the Union through his membership in the Union and by signing the grievance form, thus waiving any right to pursue arbitration as an individual under the RLA (assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists)," noting that "the IBT and Local 210 constitutions plainly provide that the Union has the authority to decline to process member grievances it finds to be without merit".

The Second Circuit's decision observed that the "CBA interlocks with this provision, providing an appeal to the SBA through the Union and states that, if the SBA deadlocks, 'the Union may appeal the case to arbitration.'”

Further and "most concretely", the Second Circuit's decision pointed out that the Plaintiff "had signed grievance form, specific to his termination grievance, clearly accepts the Union’s authority here, vesting the Union with full authority to act on his behalf".

In particular, the Second Circuit noted that Plaintiff had agreed to “accept and be bound by” the Union’s exercise of its discretion in handling his grievance", and the Second Circuit said "we will enforce that agreement here".

ln the words of the Court, Plaintiff "waived that right in connection with his termination by ceding it to the Union and, thus, his complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) ", affirming the judgment of the Federal District Court.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Municipal and School audits released

2026-10-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

On September 30, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the release of the following local government and school audits.

Click on the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Transparency of Fiscal Activities in Towns - Complete, accurate and timely financial information enables governing boards to monitor a town’s financial condition, make informed financial decisions, establish future tax levies, plan for long-term operating and capital needs and demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources. The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) selected 18 towns across nine regions to review their fiscal year 2024 annual financial report (AFR) filing status. Auditors determined that 12 towns did not file their AFR with OSC, five towns filed late and one town filed on time. Auditors also determined eight of the 18 towns selected did not maintain complete and up to date accounting records and that most of the boards did not perform annual audits.

Big Indian-Oliverea Fire District – Board Oversight (Ulster County) - The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. Auditors identified deficiencies in the board’s policies, budgeting practices, claims auditing, Length of Service Award Program administration, AFR filings and compliance with training requirements.

Broome County – Court and Trust Funds - Auditors reviewed the directors’, county clerk’s and Surrogate’s Court’s processes, procedures and records for the receipt and management of court and trust funds, as well as estates in the directors’ custody. The director did not establish adequate procedures that ensured all court and trust funds were received, accounted for and properly reported. Specifically, reconciliations were not performed in a timely manner among the director, county clerk and Surrogate’s Court clerk.

City of Fulton – Clerk-Chamberlain’s Records and Reports (Oswego County) - While the city had two different clerk-chamberlains during the audit period, the former clerk-chamberlain did not maintain accurate and up-to-date financial records and, therefore, did not properly report the city’s financial position and activity to the council each month or file the city’s 2022 and 2023 AFRs with OSC in a timely manner. The current clerk-chamberlain has made progress towards improving the records, but the errors auditors identified during the audit have not been corrected and the city’s 2024 and 2025 AFRs have not been filed.

Greene Central School District – Building Access (Chenango, Broome and Cortland Counties) - District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key cards in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

Lawrence Union Free School District – Information Technology (IT) (Nassau County) - Although district training records support that officials generally provided IT security awareness training to staff, officials did not adequately manage all nonstudent network user accounts. As a result, officials cannot be assured that district IT systems are secured and protected against unauthorized use.

Town of Macedon – Ambulance Service Financial Operations (Wayne County) - The board and officials did not adequately oversee and manage the town’s ambulance service’s financial operations. The board did not ensure ambulance service charges were properly billed, collected and reconciled; authorize billing write-offs; adopt realistic budgets; develop long-term financial or capital plans; ensure only authorized claims were paid; and ensure emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were paid at board-approved rates. Officials also did not maintain complete and up-to-date financial and inventory records or comply with certain procurement requirements.

Village of Moravia – Procurement (Cayuga County) - Village officials did not always seek competition when procuring goods and services in accordance with statutory requirements set forth in state law and the village’s procurement policy. Specifically, village officials did not have supporting documentation indicating that they sought competition for goods and services totaling more than $1.3 million and procured the goods and services in the most economical manner.

City of Oneida – Bank and Receivable Control Account Reconciliations (Madison County) - City officials did not properly reconcile bank accounts or receivable control accounts for real property taxes and water and sewer rents. As a result, officials lacked assurance that financial records were accurate and complete and that errors, discrepancies or irregularities in collections, disbursements and amounts owed to the city would be identified and corrected in a timely manner.

Town of Rotterdam – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Schenectady County) - The board did not provide for a timely annual audit of the town’s financial records for fiscal year 2024. In addition, the town comptroller did not prepare and file the 2024 AFR with OSC, as required by state law. Furthermore, the town comptroller did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports. Had the board received complete, accurate and reliable monthly reports and ensured a timely annual audit of the town’s books, records and documents, it may have identified and potentially helped remedy these issues.

Twin District Volunteer Fire Company – Credit Cards (Erie County) - Company officials did not always ensure that credit card purchases were properly supported and made for appropriate company purposes. Although the company’s credit card policy assigned responsibility for monitoring credit card activity to the board of directors, the board did not review credit card purchases, statements or supporting documentation before approving payment. Instead, the board relied on card holders to monitor usage and review and approve their own purchases.

Town of Williamstown – Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Oswego County) - The supervisor did not maintain accurate accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly financial reports and file the town’s AFRs, as required. As a result, the board’s ability to properly and effectively monitor and manage the town’s financial operations and make informed decisions was limited, and the town’s financial standing at year-end was not transparent to the board, town residents, OSC and other interested parties.

Woodhull Fire District – Financial Oversight (Steuben County) - The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, the board could not ensure that the records and reports that it used to make financial decisions were complete and accurate, which made it difficult for the board to make informed decisions and adequately plan for future expenses.

###

Terminated individual holding a term appointment challenged her dismissal from the position before her term of office had expired

2026-09-30T09:00:00.000-04:00

By resolution dated April 5, 2023, a New York State Incorporated Village [Village] appointed Petitioner as the Village's clerk-treasurer for a term of office set to expire June 30, 2024. By resolution dated May 24, 2023 the Village rescinded the Petitioner's appointment.

Petitioner brought the instant action in Supreme Court challenging the Village's termination of her employment, alleging that her removal "was not properly effectuated in accordance with Public Officers Law §36".* The Village moved pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, arguing, inter alia, that the proceeding initiated by Plaintiff was barred by the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.

A New York State Supreme Court:

1. Granted Plaintiff's petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and

2. Denied the motion of the Village pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024.

The Village appealed the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment "insofar as appealed from, with costs".

Citing Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 219 AD3d 596, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. "Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a [petition] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel";

2. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding"; and

3. "The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and the party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination".

Noting that to establish "privity" -- a relationship between parties having legal interest in the same right or property -- the Appellate Division's decision explores the connection between the parties which typically must demonstrate that "the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding" and privity "does not have a technical and well-defined meaning".

The Appellate Division then observed that privity "is an amorphous concept not easy of application", and privity includes "those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly co-parties to a prior action".

Further, the Appellate Division opined that "When the issue of privity is raised, 'courts must carefully analyze whether the party sought to be bound and the party against whom the litigated issue was decided have a relationship that would justify preclusion, and whether preclusion, with its severe consequences, would be fair under the particular circumstances'".

Contrary to the Village's contention, the Appellate Division held that the Village "... failed to demonstrate that the [Petitioner] was in privity with any of the parties [in] a separate proceeding commenced by the clerk-treasurer who preceded the [Petitioner] against, among others, the Village, and that the [Petitioner] was thereby bound by a judgment entered in that proceeding".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the Village failed to establish that the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the instant proceeding and found that "the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and denied that branch of the Village's motion which was pursuant to CPLR [§§]3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition".

* Public Officers Law §36 provides as follows: "Any town, village, improvement district or fire district officer, except a justice of the peace, may be removed from office by the supreme court for any misconuct [sic], maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office. An application for such removal may be made by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement district or fire district or by the district attorney of the county in which such town, village or district is located, and shall be made to the appellate division of the supreme court held within the judicial department embracing such town, village, improvement district or fire district. Such application shall be made upon notice to such officer of not less than eight days, and a copy of the charges upon which the application will be made must be served with such notice".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Plaintiff's filing a timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship

2026-09-29T09:00:00.000-04:00

Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Westchester County Local #860's, [Local 860]'s collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with the Town provided, among other things, that seniority shall be the determining factor for selection to a vacant position where all other factors are equal.

Town created a new general foreman position for which two applicants, A and B, applied. Town selected A for the appointment to the position and Local 860, on behalf of B, filed a grievance challenging the Town' appointing A to the position as provided by the relevant provision's set out in the CBA.

Ultimately the parties proceeded to non-binding arbitration in accordance with provisions set out in the CBA. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of appointing B to the position, which decision was rejected by the Town.

Local 860 brought an action in Supreme Court challenging the Town's decision and Town moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted the Town's motion and Local 860 appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining:

1. The filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town and Town Law §65(3) provides that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued";

2. In contrast to other notice statutes, "Town Law §65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements";

3. An exception to Town Law §65(3)'s notice of claim requirement is only applicable where a plaintiff has pleaded an ongoing or continuing violation, "which the complaint in the instant action did not"; and

4. As the plaintiffs seek both the recovery of damages and equitable relief, "the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent" to the maintenance of the instant action.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Town's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

On September 28, 2026, GT Weekly's Executive Editor, Noelle Knell, reported

2026-09-28T09:03:00.000-04:00

"There’s new IT leadership in New York State following the announcement that CIO Dru Rai has left state service.

Results reveal an evolving landscape on things like IT strategy, cybersecurity, AI and data management.

We also checked in with South Carolina CIO Nathan Hogue, who shared that the state is now tracking 250 AI use cases.

Meanwhile in Washington State, a new CISO has been named.

Finally, while AI threats to cybersecurity have been dominating headlines, ransomware remains alive and well."

Owner of Ulster County medical transportation company sentenced to prison for stealing $1.1 million in Medicare fraud scheme

2026-09-28T09:00:00.000-04:00

On September 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Ulster County District Attorney Emmanuel C. Nneji announced the owner of an Ulster County medical transportation service company today was sentenced to serve three to nine years in state prison and ordered to pay full restitution for stealing over $1.1 million by unlawfully billing the Medicaid program by inflating charges and billing for services that were never provided.

Muhammad W. Khan, 31, the owner of MAK Limo, pleaded guilty in March to grand larceny in Ulster County Court before Judge Bryan Rounds.

“Muhammad Khan falsified bills and bribed patients to deprive the Medicaid program of over a million dollars, taking money that should have rightly been spent on healthcare for New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “I thank Ulster County District Attorney Nneji for his partnership on this case and in fighting public fraud.”

“This huge theft scheme was uncovered, and the perpetrators brought to justice, by the tenacious and collaborative efforts of the investigators and lawyers dedicated to the case,” Nneji said. “I am grateful to Comptroller DiNapoli for his commitment to holding these operations accountable and recovering public funds stolen by the defendant.”

Under the Medicaid program, patients may use transportation services to go to legitimate medical appointments. Providers then bill the Medicaid program. Group rides are not allowed without prior authorization, and approved providers can only bill for mileage once for a group.

As part of the joint investigation, investigators found the defendant systematically billed the Medicaid program individually for rides that were actually group rides and for rides that never occurred. The investigation also found patients were paid kickbacks to use MAK Limo’s services and facilitate the fraud. The crimes occurred from November 2020 to August 2024.

Khan was arrested in June 2025 along with his father, Mohammad A. Khan, 69, the owner of Atlas Limo. Both companies were enrolled in the Medicaid program and received over $5.8 million dollars in Medicaid payments from New York state.

Mohammad A. Khan was charged with grand larceny in the second degree. He was accused of stealing $111,548.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.ny.gov/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

###

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 25, 2026

2026-09-26T03:00:00.000-04:00

Automate Social Service Eligibility Verifications with Instant Results Automated verification solutions help agencies adapt to H.R. 1 without increasing administrative paperwork. Learn More

Making AI work today Discover where AI is delivering results, with examples from agencies. Get your free pass

Leveraging AI for IT & Security Operations Only 7% of orgs have AI security in practice. The other 93%? Start here. Download the eBook

Drawing on real-world examples from states and cities Explore how policymakers can build safeguards that keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. DOWNLOAD

How the Philadelphia Water Department Builds Trust and Drives Action Philadelphia Water Department used targeted, data-driven communications to increase resident engagement, improve service delivery and build trust around critical water infrastructure projects. READ NOW

Keeping Public Services Accessible During Emergencies Power outages, severe weather, and equipment failures don't stop the need for public services. Learn how agencies can prepare for unexpected disruptions while maintaining reliable communications with staff and the communities they serve. DOWNLOAD

Prepare Your Agency for New H.R. 1 Eligibility Requirements Bridge system gaps with automated tools that deliver fast, seamless verifications for agency compliance. Learn More

A Nationwide Study of Truck Parking on Interstate Ramps Every night, hundreds of trucks park on interstate ramps. This report maps where and why ramp parking occurs and what it means for corridor planning, safety, and funding strategy. DOWNLOAD

Working to control the dangers of AI. Below are some of the players and the efforts being considered:

www.gsb.stanford.edu › insights › blueprint-keeping A Blueprint for Keeping Humans in Control of AI Sep 10, 2026 · Stanford GSB researchers are building frameworks that keep AI under human control even as they become more autonomous. In a cooperative game, an AI agent learns when to check in with a person and when to act alone.
controlai.org Superintelligent AI: An Extinction Risk to Humanity | ControlAI With Superintelligent AI, the risks of unsafe development, deployment, or misuse could be catastrophic—even existential—as digital intelligence surpasses human capabilities.
cacm.acm.org › blogcacm › controlling-ai Controlling AI – Communications of the ACM Oct 1, 2023 · Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly called for a CERN for AI, as well something like an IAEA for AI, all very much in line with what I and others have hoped for.
www.technologyreview.com › 2023/05/22 › 1073482 Our quick guide to the 6 ways we can regulate AI | MIT ... May 22, 2023 · We’ve analyzed six different international attempts to regulate artificial intelligence, set out the pros and cons of each, and given them a rough score indicating how influential we think... Author: Melissa Heikkilä
www.weforum.org › stories › artificial-intelligence The oversight paradox: Human control over AI may be eroding Jul 2, 2026 · AI requires human oversight, but the practice that requires is eroding. Here's why keeping humans in the governance loop will be key to governing AI well.
tech.yahoo.com › ai › articles Microsoft’s AI CEO says ‘controlling’ AI ‘is going to be a ... Sep 19, 2026 · "We should not create something that we can't control," Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman said.
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › AI_capability_control AI capability control - Wikipedia Capability control, such as a "kill switch," becomes less effective as agents become more intelligent and their ability to exploit flaws in human control systems increases.

Employer served disciplinary charges on an Employee after Employee placed a racially inflammatory message on the Employee's Facebook page

2026-09-25T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this CPLR Article 75* seeking to vacate a determination of a hearing officer made pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denying Plaintiff's petition.

Plaintiff, a tenured employee, was served with disciplinary charges alleging Employee posted a racially inflammatory message on Employee's Facebook page which resulted in the School District [Employer] charging Plaintiff with misconduct and insubordination. Following an Education Law §3020-a disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a determination sustained the charges and found that the appropriate penalty was termination of Plaintiff's employment.

Plaintiff commenced the instant CPLR Article 75 in Supreme Court seeking a court order vacating hearing officer's determination. Supreme Court denied the petition and the petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that:

1. "Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through statutory mandate ... the arbitrator's determination is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily";

2. "An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious";

3. An "article 75 review questions whether the decision was rational or had a plausible basis"; and

4. In the event the evidence submitted may be interpreted in more than one way, "this Court must 'accept the arbitrator['s] credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists'".

The Appellate Division found that the hearing officer's determination had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious and appropriately credited the testimony of the different witnesses, and "there is no cause to disturb the hearing officer's credibility determinations without improperly substituting judgment".

Noting that "A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if "it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", the fact that "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for . . . refashioning the penalty".

Further, the Appellate Division said that "The question of whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience requires a case-by-case factual analysis" and concluded that "in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the adverse impact of the racially charged posting on the school and the community, the penalty of termination of employment is not irrational and does not shock the conscience".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly denied the petition".

* Supreme Court incorrectly cited CPLR Article 78 instead of CPLR Article 75, which is the standard of review mandated by Education Law §3020-a(5)(a). Nevertheless, applying the proper standard, which was briefed by the parties, the Appellate Division affirmed.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Comptroller posts municipal Fiscal Stress Monitoring System scores

2026-09-24T15:00:00.000-04:00

On September 24, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that a total of 22 local governments in New York state were designated in fiscal stress for their local fiscal years ending (FYE) in 2025, down from 23 a year ago.

However, the number of municipalities in the most severe category, significant fiscal stress, increased from four to six, according to the report issued by Comptroller DiNapoli.

These designations are based on the Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System (FSMS) scores.

Click HERE to access the Comptroller's Press Release concerning New York State local governments found to be in fiscal stress posted on the Internet.

Nearly $107 million in unclaimed funds reported awaiting being returned to rightful owners in Orange County by New State's State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

2026-09-24T09:00:00.000-04:00

"Unclaimed funds" is money that has been lost or forgotten over time. This includes old bank accounts, uncashed checks, stock certificates and unused gift cards among other funds held by businesses and organizations. After a period of time, such "unclaimed funds" is considered abandoned property, and turned over to the New York State Comptroller’s office in accordance with New York State's Abandoned Property Law.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and State Senator James Skoufis joined local officials to highlight the return of $16,035.31 to the Town of Wallkill's Emergency Medical Services and raise awareness of the nearly $107 million dollars in unclaimed funds awaiting being claimed by Orange County residents, governmental entities, business and nonprofit organizations.

The Town of Wallkill EMS had been unable to access several insurance payments and checks it never received, which were eventually turned over to the DiNapoli’s Office of Unclaimed Funds. With the help of Skoufis’ office, the Town of Wallkill's EMS unit was able to recover more than $16,000 owed to the organization.

“Unclaimed funds belong in the hands of their rightful owners, and I am pleased we were able to return more than $16,000 to the Town of Wallkill EMS to support its critical work,” said DiNapoli. “I thank Senator Skoufis for helping connect the corps with my Office of Unclaimed Funds, and I encourage every New Yorker, business and organization to search our free online database to see if they have money waiting for them.”

“The Town of Wallkill EMS provides a critical service to the community,” said Skoufis. “They not only cover their own service area, but provide significant mutual aid to surrounding areas, and they need and deserve all our support. I’m thrilled they received their money, and that my office was helpful in connecting them with the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds. This is government working in tandem for the common good.”

"Making my constituents aware of unclaimed funds has been an incredibly rewarding aspect of my constituent outreach over the past two years, and Comptroller DiNapoli’s office has been essential in organizing the many unclaimed funds events I’ve held,” said Assemblymember Paula Elaine Kay. “This money belongs to the people and it’s important we use our positions to elevate the accessibility of these funds. The $16,000 that the Wallkill Emergency Medical Service has recovered will go a long way in supporting their life saving operations in Orange County, so thank you to Senator Skoufis and Comptroller DiNapoli for their help in facilitating this recovery. If you haven’t already, I encourage all of my constituents to search through the Comptroller’s website to see if you are entitled to unclaimed funds; you never know what could come back."

“As an emergency services organization, we need resources to function safely, treat patients, and save lives,” said Alexandria Morrice, Executive Director, Town of Wallkill EMS. “Our service area is large and our call volume is high, so equipment, supplies, training, and support are always in demand, and $16,035.32 goes a long way. We’re grateful to Senator Skoufis’ office for facilitating the assistance and to the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds for helping us access our money and getting it returned quickly to our accounts. These funds are being used to upgrade ALS equipment on each of our ambulances and fly cars."

In Orange County, $106,801,944.89 in unclaimed funds is currently waiting to be claimed across 629,862 accounts. During State Fiscal Year 2025–26, DiNapoli’s office returned $2,761,974 in unclaimed funds to Orange County residents.

To return money even faster, DiNapoli launched the Expedited Payment Program in 2025. It sends certain unclaimed funds up to $5,000 to verified individuals in the mail without having to file a claim. Before a check is issued, the Comptroller’s office sends a notification letter.

In Orange County, $1,046,412 has been sent to residents through 6,496 expedited-payment checks. Since the program’s launch in 2025, more than 300,000 expedited-payment checks totaling more than $73 million have been mailed statewide, with an average check amount of $225.

DiNapoli’s Office of Unclaimed Funds returns over $2 million each day. Unclaimed funds never expire and are free to claim through the Comptroller’s website.

Individuals, organizations, businesses and other entities can search for and claim their funds at any time:

Online: osc.ny.gov/unclaimed-funds

By phone: (800) 221-9311, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

In person: at outreach events held across the state.

A map of unclaimed funds owed to New Yorkers by county and region is available here.

###

In this Freedom of Information Law action the Appellate Division said "in order to promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broader duty on government to make its records available to the public"

2026-09-23T09:00:00.000-04:00

Petitioner's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL} request sought copies of the public calendars of the County Executive for the period January 1, 2022 through and including June 30, 2023. The County denied Petitioner's request pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(f), determining that "disclosure of this information would endanger the life or safety of individuals, notably the County Executive." Petitioner administratively appealed the denial, but the County did not respond.

Petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 against the County and the FOIL Appeals Officer for the County (County) in Supreme Court seeking a court order compelling the production of the requested records - public calendars of the County Executive for the period of January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023 - and for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to Public Officers Law §89(4)(c).

With respect to Petitioner's request for the production of certain cybersecurity contracts, Petitioner argued, among other things, that the County had failed to provide a "valid reason why every bit of the requested contracts," including the name of the vendors and the duration and cost of the contracts, "should be shielded from public disclosure."

Concerning Plaintiff's request for the County Executive's past public calendars, Petitioner contended that the County had failed to demonstrate "that the release of the calendar[s] would jeopardize the County Executive's safety, especially given that [the Petitioner] sought only the calendar[s] reflecting events that occurred in the past."

Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. Set out below is Appellate Division's decision addressing Petitioner's appeal.

In the Matter of Newsday, LLC, appellant,

County of Nassau, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2024-10010, (Index No. 619618/23)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Lillian Wan

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Ballard Spahr LLP, New York, NY (Alia L. Smith and Sasha Dudding of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross LLP, Garden City, NY (Joshua M. Liebman and Peter J. Clines of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) and for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ellen Tobin, J.), entered July 11, 2024. The judgment denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was to compel the production of all of the cybersecurity contracts of the respondent County of Nassau "in effect for the last 5 years" and, in effect, dismissing that portion of the proceeding, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition to the extent that the respondent County of Nassau is directed to produce the records requested in an unredacted form for an in camera inspection by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in accordance with this decision and order, (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was to compel the production of the public calendars of the Nassau County Executive for the period of January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, and, in effect, dismissing that portion of the proceeding, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition to the extent that the respondent County of Nassau is directed to produce the records requested in an unredacted form for an in camera inspection by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and, in effect, dismissing that portion of the proceeding; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination of those branches of the petition which were to compel the production of all of the cybersecurity contracts of the respondent County of Nassau "in effect for the last 5 years" and the public calendars of the Nassau County Executive for the period of January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, and for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs related to the petitioner's Freedom of Information Law requests based upon the in camera inspection.

In April 2023, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (Public Officers Law art 6), the petitioner requested from the respondent County of Nassau all cybersecurity contracts "in effect for the last 5 years." The County denied the request on the ground that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(i). The petitioner administratively appealed. The County denied the appeal, determining that disclosing the requested records might allow a person or entity to implement an attack against its information technology assets and jeopardize the security of those assets. The County emphasized that this was "particularly so in light of unanimous agreement by our security and information technology experts that disclosure may jeopardize our technology assets."

In September 2023, the petitioner requested copies of the public calendars of the Nassau County Executive for the period of January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. The County denied the request pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f), determining that "disclosure of this information would endanger the life or safety of individuals, notably the County Executive." On November 15, 2023, the petitioner administratively appealed the denial, but the County did not respond.

The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the County and Gregory Kalnitsky, in his official capacity as FOIL Appeals Officer for the County (hereinafter together the County), to compel production of the requested records and for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c). Concerning its request for the production of certain cybersecurity contracts, the petitioner argued, among other things, that the County had failed to provide a "valid reason why every bit of the requested contracts," including the name of the vendors and the duration and cost of the contracts, "should be shielded from public disclosure." Concerning its request for the County Executive's past public calendars, the petitioner argued that the County had failed to demonstrate "that the release of the calendar[s] would jeopardize the County Executive's safety, especially given that [the petitioner] sought only the calendar[s] reflecting events that occurred in the past."

In a judgment entered July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

"In order to promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broader duty on government to make its records available to the public" (Matter of Lane v County of Suffolk, 236 AD3d 791, 792 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sarkodie v Kings County Dist. Attorney, 226 AD3d 12, 15). "To this end, FOIL provides that all records of a public agency are presumptively open to public inspection and copying unless otherwise specifically exempted" (Matter of Lockwood v County of Suffolk, 219 AD3d 728, 729 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v County of Nassau, 158 AD3d 630, 631). An agency asserting an exemption to FOIL bears the burden of establishing that the documents qualify for that exemption and, "to meet that burden, the agency must articulate particularized and specific justification for denying disclosure" (Matter of Roth & Roth, LLP v Queens County Dist. Attorney's Off., 239 AD3d 657, 658 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v Village of Freeport, 229 AD3d 629, 630). "If the agency fails to prove that a statutory exemption applies, FOIL compels disclosure, not concealment" (Matter of Lane v Port Wash. Police Dist., 221 AD3d 698, 700 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The standard of review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an agency's denial of a FOIL request is much more stringent than the lenient standard generally applicable to CPLR article 78 review of agency actions" (id. at 700-701 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "A court is to presume that all records are open and it must construe the statutory exemptions narrowly" (id.). "If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material" (Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275).

On appeal and consistent with the CPLR article 78 petition, the petitioner states that it is only seeking access to "certain limited information about the County's cybersecurity contracts," namely, "the vendors' names, the cost, [and] the duration." "Public Officers Law § 87(2)(i) exempts material that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the capacity of an agency or an entity that has shared information with an agency to guarantee the security of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing both electronic information systems and infrastructures" (Matter of TJS of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 89 AD3d 239, 243 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the County produced affidavits of four employees, each of whom summarily concluded that releasing any portion of the subject cybersecurity contracts would jeopardize the County's capacity to guarantee the security of its information technology assets. However, none of the affidavits explained how disclosure of the requested information, which consisted of "the vendors' names, the cost, [and] the duration" of the subject contracts, would jeopardize the County's capacity to guarantee the security of its information technology assets (cf. Matter of Freedom Found. v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 230 AD3d 999, 1005; Matter of Miller v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 122 AD3d 431, 432). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the petition which sought the disclosure of all cybersecurity contracts "in effect for the last 5 years" to the extent that the petitioner sought the vendors' names, the cost, and the duration of those contracts. However, since the subject documents are not part of the record on appeal, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to conduct an in camera inspection of all representative documents to determine whether any of the material in those records falls within the asserted FOIL exemption, and whether that material should be redacted.

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f) permits an agency to deny access to records that, if disclosed, could endanger the life or safety of any person (see Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v Village of Freeport, 229 AD3d at 630; Matter of Burns v Cooke, 189 AD3d 826, 828). "'The agency in question need only demonstrate a possibility of endanger[ment] in order to invoke this exemption'" (Matter of Burns v Cooke, 189 AD3d at 828, quoting Matter of Bellamy v New York City Police Dept., 87 AD3d 874, 875, affd 20 NY3d 1028).

Here, the County submitted an affirmation of Detective Sergeant Fintan McCormac, the Commanding Officer of the Special Investigation Squad (hereinafter SIS) of the Nassau County Police Department, who is "responsible for the safety and security of" Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. McCormac stated that SIS had received "a wide range of threats directed at" the County Executive, including but not limited to "direct threats of physical harm made by individuals while attempting to approach [the County Executive] at public events," and that "there [had] been an increase in the volume of threats directed at [the County Executive] over the past year." McCormac stated that "even a prior calendar or schedule of past events, can be exploited by a potential bad actor to establish patterns of [the County Executive's] movements, which in turn can be used to anticipate his future movements by an individual or individuals seeking to attack or otherwise harm him."

McCormac's affirmation was insufficient to establish that the disclosure of any portion of the County Executive's past public calendars, including but not limited to the County Executive's public appearances, could endanger the County Executive's life or safety (see Matter of Dilworth v Westchester County Dept. of Correction, 93 AD3d 722, 724-725; see also Matter of Journal News v City of White Plains, 39 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52487[U], *6-7 [Sup Ct, Westchester County]; cf. Matter of Burns v Cooke, 189 AD3d at 828). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the petition which sought to compel the disclosure of the County Executive's past public calendars for the period of January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. However, since the subject documents are not part of the record on appeal, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to conduct an in camera inspection of all representative documents to determine whether any of the material in those records falls within the asserted FOIL exemption, and whether that material should be redacted.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner's request for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs is premature (see Matter of Lane v Port Wash. Police Dist., 221 AD3d at 708).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contentions.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reports State Government Accountability audits posted on the Internet

2026-09-22T09:00:00.000-04:00

new material

On September 21, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following State Government Accountability audits have been released.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the audit report described.

State University of New York – Artificial Intelligence Governance (2024-S-33) The State University of New York (SUNY) is the nation’s largest comprehensive system of public higher education, and its governing arm—SUNY System Administration (SUNY Admin)—provides general oversight of operations for State-operated campuses. SUNY campuses have adopted artificial intelligence (AI) to support operations, including transcribing clinical notes during patient visits, reading license plates and identifying parking violations in campus parking lots, monitoring campus data to identify students at risk of dropping out and automatically masking personally identifiable information from video evidence. Auditors found that SUNY Admin does not have an effective AI governance framework, a standard definition of AI, or documented policies and procedures related to the development and use of AI systems. A sample of four SUNY campuses that have used AI showed that AI governance varies significantly across campuses—some have identified key risks and taken steps to address them, while others have not created or updated policies to address risks or taken other steps toward effective AI governance.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority – New York City Transit: Risk Assessment and Implementation of Measures to Address Extreme Weather Conditions (Follow-Up) (2025-F-31) Flooding remains a serious issue for New York City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) transportation system, including New York City Transit (Transit). In September 2007, the Chair of the MTA appointed a commission to make sustainability-related recommendations to the MTA and its agencies. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, examined whether MTA had identified potential damage to its system and developed plans to mitigate the effect of extreme weather conditions and flooding, and whether the MTA had tested/updated the plans and inspected and maintained the equipment to ensure they can be deployed when needed. The audit found MTA had not implemented one of the most important recommendations—the development of the climate change adaptation master plan. A review of a sample of capital projects intended to correct or prevent damage found that projects were often incomplete in scope of work, not finished on time or within budget or insufficiently documented. MTA officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s nine audit recommendations, five were implemented, two were partially implemented and two were not implemented.

New York City Office of Technology and Innovation – Artificial Intelligence Governance (Follow-Up) 2025-F-17 New York City’s Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI) was created by the Mayor’s Executive Order 3 in January 2022, with responsibility for the oversight and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). A prior audit, issued in February 2023, examined governance policies for AI use at four agencies: the Administration for Children’s Services, the Department of Education, the New York City Police Department, and the Department of Buildings. The audit found significant shortfalls in oversight and risk assessment of artificial intelligence. OTI officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. All three of the initial report’s audit recommendations were partially implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Helen Keller Services for the Blind: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2024-S-20) Helen Keller Services for the Blind (Helen Keller) is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide Special Class education services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as the SED preschool cost-based program). For the audit scope, Helen Keller reported approximately $10 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based program. Auditors identified $1,337,765 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

Agriculture and New York State Horse Breeding Development Fund – Security Over Critical Systems (2026-S-2) The Agriculture and New York State Horse Breeding Development Fund (HBDF) is a public benefit corporation responsible for promoting agriculture through the breeding of Standardbred horses and the conduct of equine research within the state. HBDF administers three racing programs and uses the funds from these programs to support the statewide 4-H program and the Harry M. Zweig Memorial Fund for Equine Research to promote equine research at Cornell University. Auditors identified areas where HBDF could improve certain security controls to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data and communicated the details of these findings in a confidential report to HBDF.

XXXX

If an administrative agency reaches contrary results in a particular decision on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation

2026-09-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding sought to annul a determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission affirming its earlier determination disqualifying the Plaintiff to a position as a Nassau County probation officer. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment "on the law, with cost's", granted the Plaintiff's petition and remitted the matter to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance its decision, set out below.

In the Matter of Richard Dopkin, appellant,

County of Nassau, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2024-04836, (Index No. 606358/23)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Cheryl E. Chambers

Paul Wooten

Helen Voutsinas, JJ.

Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Mineola, NY, for appellant.

Thomas A. Adams, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission dated February 6, 2023, affirming its prior determination dated November 28, 2022, disqualifying the petitioner from eligibility for a position as a Nassau County probation officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Catherine Rizzo, J.), entered February 16, 2024. The judgment denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, the determination dated February 6, 2023, is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The petitioner took and passed the Nassau County Probation Officer Trainee Examination and was placed on a list as an eligible candidate for employment as a probation officer. In November 2022, after conducting a background investigation, the Nassau County Civil Service Commission (hereinafter the Commission) notified the petitioner that he was disqualified from employment on the grounds of "disrespect for the process of law and order as evidenced by [the petitioner's] motor vehicle record." The petitioner appealed the Commission's determination, submitting, inter alia, a list of previous applicants with allegedly similar or more egregious legal records than the petitioner's, whose initial disqualifications from candidacy were reversed upon administrative appeal. In a determination dated February 6, 2023, the Commission affirmed its prior determination. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the Commission's February 6, 2023 determination. In a judgment entered February 16, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

"An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, and this discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied" (Matter of Dellisanti v Suffolk County Police Dept., 239 AD3d 976, 978 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 214 AD3d 793, 795). "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it" (Matter of Dellisanti v Suffolk County Police Dept., 239 AD3d at 978 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 214 AD3d at 795). "A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious, and thus, where an agency reaches contrary results on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation" (Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d 1112, 1114 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mullen v County of Suffolk Police Dept., 307 AD2d 1036, 1037).

Here, the Commission failed to set forth any factual basis to explain why it was reaching a different result than it did with respect to the applications of purportedly similarly situated candidates (see Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d at 1114; Matter of Klein v Levin, 305 AD2d 316, 317). Thus, the Commission's determination on appeal to affirm its disqualification of the petitioner was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d at 1114; Matter of Nicolai v McLaughlin, 163 AD3d 572, 574).

In light of our determination, the petitioner's remaining contentions need not be reached.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, annul the determination dated February 6, 2023, and remit the matter to the Commission for a new determination of the petitioner's appeal from the determination dated November 28, 2022, to articulate the reasons, if any, for reaching a different result than it did with respect to the applications of purportedly similarly situated candidates raised by the petitioner.

LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 17, 2026

2026-09-19T09:00:00.000-04:00

New York State's Attorney Letitia James establishes AI whistleblower site The Albany Times Union newspaper reports New York State's Attorney General has created an Internet site on which individuals and organizations may report AI concerns. More

Utah State Sen. Kirk Cullimore has helped put Utah at the forefront of AI Data The focus is privacy and digital identity policy and is designed to be replicated beyond Utah. Read More

Local election officials are welcoming a Supreme Court voting ruling The ruling blocks sweeping changes to mail voting just weeks before the midterms. Months of uncertainty forced officials to prepare contingency plans and created additional work during an already demanding election cycle. Read More

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

Govern AI Before It Governs You Practical templates, scorecards, and worksheets to help your agency govern AI Download the Free Kit

From Threat to Trust: Building Security into Public Workflows Protecting today's public sector means building security into every workflow — not bolting it on afterward. This thought leadership paper explores why embedding security directly into devices and everyday workflows is essential for reducing risk, improving resilience and supporting mission success. Download

Applied Intelligence: How High-Performance Workstations Are Driving Public Innovation AI innovation starts with the right infrastructure. Learn how high-performance workstations help government agencies process data faster, protect sensitive information and power AI-driven outcomes. Download the paper to discover practical strategies for modernizing your technology foundation. DOWNLOAD

Employee challenged her termination for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement after her Employer denied her request for a religious exemption

2026-09-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff was terminated from her position with New York State Unified Court System [Employer] as the result of her failure to comply with Employer's COVID-19 vaccination requirement after Employer denied her request for a religious exemption.

Employee than sued Employer alleging Employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate her religion beliefs.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff, holding that there was no genuine dispute that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination—resting in large part on statements made by the Employer during discovery—and that the Employer did not demonstrate that granting an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship.

Employer appealed, contending that the Federal District Court failed to modify the prima facie test for failure-to-accommodate religion claims in light of EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768.

The Second Circuit said that it agreed that Abercrombie abrogated the Second Circuit's earlier Title VII precedents. However, because the Federal District Court "improperly deemed statements in the discovery record to be judicial admissions" the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the matter "for further proceedings" consistent with its instant opinion.

Click HERE to access the opinion of Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, posted on the Internet.

New York State local government and school audits posted on the Internet on September 16, 2026.

2026-09-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

On September 16, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were posted on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit report.

South Huntington Union Free School District – Credit Cards (Suffolk County) District officials did not ensure that credit card charges were authorized, supported, for valid district purposes or approved. As a result, the board and officials did not establish adequate oversight and internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that district credit cards were used appropriately and in the best interest of taxpayers. In addition, because the board did not ensure that all claims were reviewed and approved by the claims auditor prior to payment, the district faced an increased risk of paying for goods or services that did not serve a proper district purpose.

Village of Groton – Capital Project (Tompkins County) The village board did not competitively procure certain goods and services for the project. Although the project’s original construction contracts, totaling $3.7 million, were properly procured, the board subsequently procured $135,900 in goods and services without seeking competition in accordance with state law or the village’s procurement policy.

Beekmantown Central School District – Investment Program (Clinton County) Auditors determined that the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid. However, district officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. For example, during the audit period, officials did not prepare any cash flow forecasts to estimate funds available for investment or solicit interest rate quotes from financial institutions. As a result, officials missed an opportunity for the district to realize additional revenues of more than $1 million.

Honeoye Central School District – Financial Management (Ontario County and Livingston County) The board and district officials did not effectively manage fund balance. Although the board and district officials generally maintained surplus fund balance within the statutory 4 percent limit, they did so by transferring surplus fund balance to reserves at, or after, year-end and maintaining $1.1 million excess fund balance in the debt service fund. As of June 30, 2025, two general fund reserves totaling $977,890 were not reasonably funded.

###

Concerning standing to sue in an educational setting.

2026-09-16T09:00:00.000-04:00

Defending Education* is an association of parents, students, and concerned citizens that brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 challenging a set of student speech policies adopted by the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, a New York State School District, for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Defending Education represented three of its parent-members whose children attend school in the Croton-Harmon School District and espouse social and political views that they wish to share but refrain from doing so because they feared their speech was prohibited by the School District’s policies. Defending Education brought suit in a Federal District Court seeking a preliminary injunction against the School District's enforcement of those policies.

The District Court denied that motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction citing Aguayo v Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir. 1973), in which the Second Circuit had held that "Associations lack standing to sue on behalf of their members for claims brought under §1983". Defending Education appealed the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit but, acknowledging Aguayo, moved for summary affirmance, which the Second Circuit granted.

Defending Education then petitioned for reconsideration of their cause of action en banc, asking the Second Circuit to overrule Aguayo and to remand the case to the District Court so that Defending Education could pursue its lawsuit against the School District.

After circulating this opinion to all active members of the Second Circuit and receiving no objection, the Second Circuit overrule Aguayo’s holding "with respect to associational standing under §1983". In its place, the Second Circuit adopted the rule outlined by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977), and adopted by its sister Circuits, which provides that a membership organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members under §1983 when:

(a) those members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;

(b) the interests protected are germane to that organization’s purpose, and

(c) the participation of individual members in the lawsuit is not necessary for the claim asserted or the relief requested.

The Second Circuit than REVERSE the judgment of the Federal District Court and REMAND the matter for further proceedings in accordance with its instant ruling.

* The Court pointed out that "Defending Education is an association of parents, students, and concerned citizens that brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 challenging a set of student speech policies adopted by the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District (“Croton-Harmon” or the “District”) in New York for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

Don't miss the 2026 Women's Leadership Summit!

2026-09-15T14:00:00.000-04:00

The Future is Chasing Us - Are You Ready to Lead it?

To be held at the Joseph A. Floreano Rochester Riverside Convention Center

Rochester, New York

Thursday Sep 24, 2026

11:00 AM : 5:00 PM EDT

The annual Women’s Leadership Summit will bring together women leaders in all phases of their careers throughout the Greater Rochester area. Influential leaders will come together for an afternoon of learning, conversation, career development, networking and more. During lunch, we will celebrate Rochester companies who are elevating, growing and supporting women leaders through the annual Elevating Women awards program.

Buy Tickets Now!

Employee alleges Employer subjected him to unlawful retaliation and other unlawful acts and served him with false disciplinary charges

2026-09-15T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff was served with Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary charges. After a Civil Service Law §75 hearing, a Hearing Officer found that Plaintiff was guilty a charge of speeding on the Thruway but found that all remaining disciplinary charges were not sustained.

Although the Hearing Officer recommended that Plaintiff be restored to his position, Plaintiff was reassigned to another facility, more than a three hour drive from Plaintiff's residence.

Plaintiff sued his Employer and other named individuals [Defendants] alleging that he was subjected to retaliation and other actions acts by Defendants including being served with disciplinary charges based on "false and manufactured charges", and a disciplinary suspension. The matter proceeded to trial and a jury considered the following three causes of action:

(1) Deprivation of Plaintiff's 14th Amendment right to equal protection pursuant to 42 USC §1983;

(2) Retaliation in violation of 42 USC §1983; and

(3) Tortious interference with business relations.

The jury found for Plaintiff and awarded Plaintiff $500,000 in damages for "pain, suffering, and emotional distress, harm to reputation, and loss of enjoyment of life".

Supreme Court awarded Plaintiff $185,392 in attorneys' fees.

Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's ruling, contending Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their CPLR 3211 motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's equal protection cause of action. The Appellate Division rejected that contention.

Defendants, citing Engquist v Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (553 US 591), also argued that "a class-of-one equal protection claim is unavailable in the public employment context, and an equal protection claim based on selective enforcement, such as alleged by [Plaintiff], is likewise barred. Noting that the Second Circuit has left open that question and that there is a split of authority in the district courts, the Appellate Division said it was "persuaded by the reasoning in Airday v City of New York (2020 WL 4015770), that selective-enforcement claims survive after Engquist.

Defendants' further argued that, "even if selective-enforcement claims survived Engquist, they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC §1983". The Appellate Division said that such an argument was not preserved for its review, and, in any event, is without merit, observing that "Public officials may invoke qualified immunity under 42 USC §1983 unless, inter alia, the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time." Further, opined the Appellate Division, malice-based selective-enforcement claims premised on the violation of equal protection were recognized at the time of Defendants' actions and thus Defendants were aware of the purported unlawfulness of their conduct.

Defendants next contend that, with respect to Plaintiff's equal protection cause of action, Plaintiff failed to identify "a materially similar comparator whom [Defendants] treated differently and [Defendants] are therefore entitled to a directed verdict on that cause of action". The Appellate Division held that "[Defendants'] contention [was] not preserved for [its] review inasmuch as [Defendants] did not raise that issue in their motion for a directed verdict."

Defendants also argued that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their CPLR 3211 motion seeking to dismiss the retaliation cause of action because Plaintiff's speech was not protected inasmuch as it was speech he made as an employee, not as a citizen. The Appellate Division rejected that argument, noting that "To establish a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, a plaintiff 'must demonstrate that (1) [their] speech addressed a matter of public concern, (2) [they] suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the speech and the adverse employment action, so that it can be said that [their] speech was a motivating factor in the determination'".

In contrast, the Appellate Division noted that "[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline".

The Appellate Division said it agreed with Defendants that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the tortious interference cause of action, observing that "Generally, actions against [New York] State officers acting in their official capacity in the exercise of governmental functions are deemed to be, in essence, claims against the State and, therefore, suable only in the Court of Claims".

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Defendants' contention that the matter should be remitted to Supreme Court for a recalculate the award of attorneys' fees and unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment without costs.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Local Government and School District audits posted on the Internet

2026-09-14T09:00:00.000-04:00

On September 11, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click on text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit report posted on the Internet.

Averill Park – Sand Lake Fire District No. 2 – Claims Auditing (Rensselaer County) The board did not conduct a thorough audit of claims paid. Auditors reviewed 62 claims totaling $280,832 and determined that none of the claims were audited and approved by the entire board as required. Auditors determined that the 62 claims were properly supported and for valid and legal purposes. However, the lack of a claims audit increased the risk that claims for improper purposes could be paid, or that irregularities could go undetected and uncorrected.

City of Olean – Financial Management (Cattaraugus County) City officials did not properly manage the city’s fund balance or ensure that financial activity was accurately recorded and reported. Specifically, city officials did not consistently maintain unrestricted fund balance in accordance with the city’s fund balance policy, and the city’s accounting records and financial reports were inaccurate.

Fulton City School District – Financial Condition (Oswego County) The board adopted budgets that relied on appropriated fund balance and underestimated expenditures, resulting in recurring operating deficits that significantly depleted the district’s financial cushion. As a result, the district's surplus fund balance declined to $607,034 at the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year, representing just 0.6% of the ensuing year’s budget. The district also issued $8 million in revenue anticipation notes to address year-end cash flow needs.

Groton Central School District – Building Access (Cayuga County, Cortland County and Tompkins County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key fobs in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

Hancock Rural Fire District – Board Oversight (Delaware County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, contracts were incomplete, required policies were not adopted, commissioners did not complete required fiscal oversight training and the board did not annually audit the treasurer’s records.

Malverne Union Free School District – Building Access (Nassau County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key cards in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings.

North Brookfield Volunteer Fire Department – Investments (Madison County) Department officials did not adopt a written investment policy or establish procedures to govern the investment of department funds or provide a framework to help ensure funds were invested safely and prudently, and that the department’s resources were not exposed to unnecessary financial risk. During the audit period, the department invested $77,200 with a local tax preparer/insurance agent who issued promissory notes that promised an 8% annual return. The individual whom the department invested their funds with subsequently filed for bankruptcy in April 2023 and was convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme involving more than $50 million. Although the department recovered $6,442 through the bankruptcy proceedings, it lost $45,758 of its principal investment and never received a return on the investment.

Snyder Fire District – Claims Auditing (Erie County) The board did not properly audit all claims before payment, and the district incurred unnecessary costs totaling approximately $9,700 as a result. Auditors reviewed 137 claims totaling approximately $367,000 and determined that 115 claims totaling approximately $357,000 (84% of the claims reviewed, and 97% of dollars examined) did not have sufficient documentation to support a proper audit and should not have been approved and paid for.

Springfield Fire District – Board Oversight (Otsego County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of the treasurer’s accounting records and financial reports or ensure that all required Annual Financial Reports (AFRs) were filed. As a result, the board lacked assurance that the district’s accounting records and financial reports were accurate, financial operations were properly monitored and statutory reporting requirements were met. In addition, when AFRs are not filed, the board, taxpayers, the Office of the State Comptroller and other interested parties are prevented from obtaining timely and reliable information to assess the district’s financial condition.

Town of Galway – Salaries and Employee Benefits (Saratoga County) The board authorized salaries and benefits through resolutions and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Time worked was supported by time records containing supervisory approval, all payrolls were certified by the town supervisor, and leave accruals were generally earned and used appropriately. However, the town supervisor did not adequately monitor salaries paid and benefits provided to ensure employees were paid and received benefits consistent with approved board resolutions and the CBA.

Town of Portage – Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Livingston County) The supervisor did not maintain complete, accurate and up-to-date accounting recors and reports. Although the supervisor assigned his duties for maintaining the accounting records and preparing disbursements and financial reports to a bookkeeping firm, the supervisor did not provide adequate oversight of these duties.

Town of Rose – Supervisors’ Records and Reports (Wayne County) The supervisors did not maintain complete, accurate and up-to-date accounting records and reports. Although the supervisors assigned their duties for maintaining their accounting records and preparing disbursements and financial reports to the appointed clerk to the supervisor, the supervisors did not provide adequate oversight of these duties.

Village of South Glens Falls – Budgeting and Financial Management (Saratoga County) The board and village officials did not adopt realistic and structurally balanced budgets or effectively manage fund balance and reserve funds during the audit period. The board routinely overestimated appropriations, did not consistently receive or review monthly budget-to-actual reports and did not adopt fund balance or reserve policies. These practices contributed to accumulating excessive surplus funds which may indicate that taxes and fees were higher than necessary to fund operations.

Waterloo Central School District – Building Access (Seneca County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings.

###

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 11, 2026

2026-09-12T09:00:00.000-04:00

Budget Director Kristin Walker is using research, data and performance management to help state agencies evaluate programs and direct limited resources where they can have the greatest impact. Read More

Keeping Public Services Accessible During Emergencies Power outages, severe weather, and equipment failures don't stop the need for public services. Learn how agencies can prepare for unexpected disruptions while maintaining reliable communications with staff and the communities they serve. DOWNLOAD

Better User Experiences, Better Government: Designing the Modern Workplace In this thought leadership paper, explore how the Texas Teachers Retirement System redesigned its workplace to create a more seamless employee experience, improve collaboration and reduce IT complexity. Download the paper to learn five practical best practices for modernizing meeting spaces, supporting hybrid work and building workplaces that empower employees to focus on serving the public. DOWNLOAD

From Threat to Trust: Building Security into Public Workflows Protecting today's public sector means building security into every workflow — not bolting it on afterward. This thought leadership paper explores why embedding security directly into devices and everyday workflows is essential for reducing risk, improving resilience and supporting mission success. Download the full paper to learn how your organization can make security a seamless part of daily operations. DOWNLOAD

A Candid Conversation About Government AI Hear government leaders discuss AI governance, risk, data protection and accountability. Save Your Spot

Employee on a pregnancy-related leave terminated after failing to commit to a return-to-work date

2026-09-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this action to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Executive Law §296 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107, Plaintiff appealed from an order of the Supreme Court granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing her complaint.

Plaintiff had taken a pregnancy-related leave but had repeatedly failed to commit to a date on which she would return from such leave. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment at the end of her pregnancy-related leave.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender and retaliation within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL] (Executive Law §296) and the New York City Human Rights Law [NYCHRL] (Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.

Supreme Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division found that:

1. Defendant met its prima facie burden by demonstrating that Plaintiff's employment was terminated for a nondiscriminatory reason, namely her failure to commit to a return-to-work date, citing Niemotko v Mount St. Mary Coll., 241 AD3d at 703; and

2. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Defendant's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination, citing D'Agostino v MMC E., LLC, 184 AD3d 719.

The Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Defendant's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL", noting that "the [Defendant] met its prima facie burden by establishing that there was no evidentiary route that could allow any jury to believe that the [Plaintiff's] employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons".

The Appellate Division also noted that Plaintiff "failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the proffered explanation [by the Defendant] was a pretext for discrimination or whether discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the challenged action".

Opining that "Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Defendant's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging gender discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL", the Appellate Division dismissed Plaintiff's appeal.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division to hold its 1st Annual Educational Seminar

2026-09-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

Join the New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division for its 1st Annual Educational Seminar, a premier two-day program featuring timely updates, practical guidance, and in-depth discussions on the issues shaping New York State's workers’ compensation law.

Topics include:

Current Trends in NYS Workers’ Compensation
Litigation Strategy & Effective Hearing Protocol
Appellate Division, 3rd Department Panel
Section 32 Settlements & Stipulations
Permanency & Labor Market Attachment
Medical Causation & Benefits
A View From the Bench
Kids Chance of New York Scholarship Presentation
Presentation from the New York State Compensation Board
Advocate for Injured Workers
Case Law Update/Appeals
Third Party Settlements – Liens & Offsets
Practicing with Professionalism

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 – Thursday, November 5, 2026
New York State Bar Association – Albany, NY
Register Now

Sponsors include:

Workers' Compensation Law Division Committee
Torts, Insurance, & Compensation Law Section
Committee on Continuing Legal Education

New York State's State and Local Employees' Retirement System announces employer contributions rates for State Fiscal Year 2027-2028

2026-09-09T09:00:00.000-04:00

In a press release issued on September 8, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported "the employer contribution rates for the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2027-28. Employers’ average contribution rates will decrease from 17.6% to 17.3% of payroll for the Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] and increase from 36.5% to 37.4% of payroll for the Police and Fire Retirement System [PFRS]."

In the press release, the State Comptroller reported:

NYSLRS is made up of these two systems, which pay service and disability retirement benefits to state and local public employees and death benefits to their survivors. There are more than 3,000 participating employers in ERS and PFRS, and more than 300 different retirement plan combinations. In the SFY that ended March 31, 2026, NYSLRS paid more than $17.5 billion in benefits. ERS has about 1.2 million members with 493,000 retirees and beneficiaries receiving benefits and PFRS has 79,000 members with 42,000 retirees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits.*

The Governor' press release notes:

“Our state pension fund and retirement system continue to be among the strongest in the nation, even as we navigate the challenges of damaging federal policy changes, market volatility and global conflict,” DiNapoli said. “These rates, coupled with our disciplined, long-term investment strategy and prudent management, will help ensure public workers and their families receive the retirement benefits they have earned.

"Employer rates for NYSLRS are determined based on investment performance and actuarial assumptions recommended by NYSLRS’ actuary, who is required to review the actuarial assumptions and experience and to issue an annual report. The recommendations are reviewed by the independent Actuarial Advisory Committee and approved by the Comptroller. In addition to investment performance, other factors that impact rates include higher salaries, plan options selected by employers, recent legislative reforms to Tiers 5 and 6 and member retirement rates.

The press release also noted: "In 2012, DiNapoli began providing employers with access to a two-year projection of their annual pension bills. Employers can use this projection in the preparation of their budgets. Projections of required contributions vary by employer depending on factors such as the types of retirement benefit plans adopted, salaries paid, and the distribution of employees among the six membership tiers."

The press release continues, indicating:

"Payments based on the new rates are due by Feb. 1, 2028, but employers receive a discount if payment is made by Dec. 15, 2027.

"The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s long-term assumed rate of return will remain at 5.9%. DiNapoli has been a leader in the trend of public pension funds lowering their assumed rates of return to better enable New York to weather volatile markets. The median investment return assumption for public pension funds was 7% in July 2026, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators."

DiNapoli also announced that NYSLRS had a funded ratio of 96.8% as of March 31, 2026. NYSLRS is consistently one of the nation’s best funded retirement systems. "A high funding ratio means NYSLRS has funds available to pay retirement benefits to about 1.3 million members, consisting of over 750,000 current and former state and local government employees and more than 535,000 retirees and their beneficiaries."

The fund’s estimated value was $309.7 billion as of June 30, 2026.

* Nota Bene: The State University of New York's Optional Retirement Program is not part of NYSLRS.

Report

Annual Report to the Comptroller on Actuarial Assumptions

Fiduciary and Conflict of Interest Review

###

Election of remedies

2026-09-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff, a parent of children attending the School District's schools, appealed a determination of the School District's Board of Education [Respondent] with the Commissioner of Education after being informed "that he would be banned from all district property and that any emails sent to district staff would be blocked through June 30, 2026".

Plaintiff argued that the Respondent’s limitations on his access to school property was arbitrary and capricious because his conduct was neither disruptive nor abusive and violated his First Amendment and due process rights.

Respondent contended that Plaintiff had violated its code of conduct and that its "temporary restrictions were necessary given [Plaintiff's] aggressive and inappropriate conduct".

Commissioner of Education Rosa, decided that Plaintiff's appeal to the Commissioner must be dismissed in consideration of the doctrine of election of remedies, noting that Plaintiff had filed a law suit in Supreme Court on March 10, 2026 against the Respondent concerning the same issues and seeking similar relief.

Noting that the action in Supreme Court "remains pending," the Commissioner said that "Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice for the Commissioner to decide claims that [Petitioner] has elected to raise in court, particularly where that proceeding seeks the same or similar relief".

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

New York Public Personnel Law

Plaintiff held to have waived any right to personally proceed with his grievance once he authorized his Union to handle the grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement

New York State Municipal and School audits released

Terminated individual holding a term appointment challenged her dismissal from the position before her term of office had expired

A New York State Supreme Court:

1. Granted Plaintiff's petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and

2. Denied the motion of the Village pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024.

Citing Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 219 AD3d 596, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. "Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a [petition] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel";

Plaintiff's filing a timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship

On September 28, 2026, GT Weekly's Executive Editor, Noelle Knell, reported

Owner of Ulster County medical transportation company sentenced to prison for stealing $1.1 million in Medicare fraud scheme

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 25, 2026

controlai.org Superintelligent AI: An Extinction Risk to Humanity | ControlAI With Superintelligent AI, the risks of unsafe development, deployment, or misuse could be catastrophic—even existential—as digital intelligence surpasses human capabilities.

cacm.acm.org › blogcacm › controlling-ai Controlling AI – Communications of the ACM Oct 1, 2023 · Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly called for a CERN for AI, as well something like an IAEA for AI, all very much in line with what I and others have hoped for.

www.weforum.org › stories › artificial-intelligence The oversight paradox: Human control over AI may be eroding Jul 2, 2026 · AI requires human oversight, but the practice that requires is eroding. Here's why keeping humans in the governance loop will be key to governing AI well.

tech.yahoo.com › ai › articles Microsoft’s AI CEO says ‘controlling’ AI ‘is going to be a ... Sep 19, 2026 · "We should not create something that we can't control," Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman said.

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › AI_capability_control AI capability control - Wikipedia Capability control, such as a "kill switch," becomes less effective as agents become more intelligent and their ability to exploit flaws in human control systems increases.

Employer served disciplinary charges on an Employee after Employee placed a racially inflammatory message on the Employee's Facebook page

New York State's Comptroller posts municipal Fiscal Stress Monitoring System scores

Nearly $107 million in unclaimed funds reported awaiting being returned to rightful owners in Orange County by New State's State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

In this Freedom of Information Law action the Appellate Division said "in order to promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broader duty on government to make its records available to the public"

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reports State Government Accountability audits posted on the Internet

If an administrative agency reaches contrary results in a particular decision on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 17, 2026

Utah State Sen. Kirk Cullimore has helped put Utah at the forefront of AI Data The focus is privacy and digital identity policy and is designed to be replicated beyond Utah. Read More

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

Govern AI Before It Governs You Practical templates, scorecards, and worksheets to help your agency govern AI Download the Free Kit

Employee challenged her termination for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement after her Employer denied her request for a religious exemption

New York State local government and school audits posted on the Internet on September 16, 2026.

Concerning standing to sue in an educational setting.

Defending Education then petitioned for reconsideration of their cause of action en banc, asking the Second Circuit to overrule Aguayo and to remand the case to the District Court so that Defending Education could pursue its lawsuit against the School District.

(a) those members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;

(b) the interests protected are germane to that organization’s purpose, and

(c) the participation of individual members in the lawsuit is not necessary for the claim asserted or the relief requested.

The Second Circuit than REVERSE the judgment of the Federal District Court and REMAND the matter for further proceedings in accordance with its instant ruling.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

Don't miss the 2026 Women's Leadership Summit!

Employee alleges Employer subjected him to unlawful retaliation and other unlawful acts and served him with false disciplinary charges

Although the Hearing Officer recommended that Plaintiff be restored to his position, Plaintiff was reassigned to another facility, more than a three hour drive from Plaintiff's residence.

New York State Local Government and School District audits posted on the Internet

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 11, 2026

A Candid Conversation About Government AI Hear government leaders discuss AI governance, risk, data protection and accountability. Save Your Spot

Employee on a pregnancy-related leave terminated after failing to commit to a return-to-work date

New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division to hold its 1st Annual Educational Seminar

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 – Thursday, November 5, 2026New York State Bar Association – Albany, NYRegister NowSponsors include:Workers' Compensation Law Division CommitteeTorts, Insurance, & Compensation Law SectionCommittee on Continuing Legal Education

New York State's State and Local Employees' Retirement System announces employer contributions rates for State Fiscal Year 2027-2028

Election of remedies

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 – Thursday, November 5, 2026
New York State Bar Association – Albany, NY
Register Now

Sponsors include:

Workers' Compensation Law Division Committee
Torts, Insurance, & Compensation Law Section
Committee on Continuing Legal Education