New York Public Personnel Law

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 4, 2026

2026-09-05T03:00:00.000-04:00

The Q3 2026 issue of Governing Magazine is out now. This edition spotlights Governing’s 2026 Public Officials of the Year. Honorees are tackling government’s toughest challenges with pragmatic leadership, fresh ideas and a focus on delivering results that improve people’s lives. Read More.

Governing in the Age of Agentic AI This Governing guide gives elected, legislative and executive leaders a practical framework for navigating this next phase of AI. Drawing on real-world examples from states and cities, it explores how policymakers can encourage responsible experimentation, modernize governance and funding models, prepare the public workforce, strengthen transparency and build safeguards that keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. DOWNLOAD

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

Local government leadership is a public activity, from campaigning to showing up when constituents need help or attention. But according to a new survey from Princeton’s Bridging Divides Initiative, many local leaders feel less comfortable being in public. Read More

Safer Communities, Lower Costs: What Government Leaders Need to Know About AI Dash Cams This paper explores how agencies are using AI to reduce crashes, lower liability and insurance costs, protect employees from false claims, and uncover operational efficiencies that deliver a rapid return on investment. DOWNLOAD

Colorado, New Mexico and Washington are expanding protections for wetlands and streams as federal oversight retreats, offering potential models for other states. Read More

How Much AI Is Already in Your Agency? See how CapMetro uncovered AI usage and built governance on real organizational data. Discover Their Approach

Creating Strategic Partnerships in State and Local Government Download this paper to explore how strategic partnerships can help agencies optimize technology investments, improve service delivery and prepare for what's next. DOWNLOAD

How Reno Transformed Boards and Commissions to Build an Award-Winning Governance Model Learn how Reno centralized governance workflows, reduced administrative burden, improved compliance and delivers a more accessible experience for residents — all without increasing costs. READ NOW

How High-Performance Computing Meets Compliance Innovation and compliance don't have to compete. Learn how public sector organizations can securely power AI, advanced analytics and high-performance computing while meeting evolving regulatory requirements. Download the paper for practical guidance on building secure, future-ready computing environments. DOWNLOAD

Think Like a Fraudster, Adapt Like an Expert Identity fraud is a significant and growing threat to the integrity and mission of government services. The key to countering today's threats and future risks is to understand what motivates fraudsters. This handbook explains key varieties of identity fraud and the fundamentals of effective identity verification. Most importantly, it gives government leaders insights into the fraudster's mindset so they can create strategies to proactively prevent fraud and adapt to evolving tactics. DOWNLOAD

How the City of Newport News Is Raising the Bar for Open Government Facing a surge in public records requests, Newport News centralized FOIA management to improve transparency, streamline compliance and strengthen public access to government information. READ NOW

Achieve Governance and Speed Without Compromise Outdated systems and disconnected workflows slow progress and limit accountability. Discover how intelligent work management gives government leaders the visibility, control and automation needed to accelerate projects without sacrificing governance. Download the paper the full paper to learn more. DOWNLOAD

NYPPL will observe Labor Day on Monday, Sept. 7, 2026.

Labor Day Weekend Travel Advisory

2026-09-04T11:21:41.611-04:00

NEW YORK STATE'S GOVERNOR HOCHUL SUSPENDS CONSTRUCTION-RELATED LANE CLOSURES FOR LABOR DAY WEEKEND

Lane Closures Suspended From Friday, September 4 at 6:00 a.m. to Tuesday, September 8 at 6:00 a.m.

Motorists Urged To Slow Down and Move Over for All Vehicles

Awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in CPLR Article 78 actions

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

Plaintiff commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, seeking, inter alia, to be reinstated to his position as a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department [FDNY] and an award of attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements.

Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the Plaintiff's petition which was for reinstatement and directed a hearing on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. Following the hearing, Supreme Court determined that the Plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the sum of $28,080, plus costs and disbursements. FDNY and the City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Citing Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d 870 and other decisions, the Appellate Division said that "The general rule is that in [CPLR] article 78 proceedings, the prevailing party may not collect attorneys' fees from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or by court rule".

In the instant matter the Appellate Division held that "since the award of attorneys' fees was not authorized by agreement, statute, or court rule", the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys' fees to the Plaintiff.

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

Arbitrators relinquish all powers over the parties to the arbitration upon issuance of a final award and are precluded from modifying or reconsidering that award

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

On August 26, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, issued a decision addressing efforts by the relevant parties to confirm an arbitration award and a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75, inter alia, to vacate an arbitration award involving the same parties.

The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:

In the Matter of Tawannah Jordan, appellant,

New York City Transit, respondent.

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

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-01413, (Index Nos. 510230/23, 516876/23)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Lourdes M. Ventura, JJ.

Law Office of Edward Pichardo PLLC, New York, NY, for appellant.

David I. Farber, Brooklyn, NY (Byron Z. Zinonos of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated January 10, 2023, and a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to vacate an arbitration award dated May 18, 2023, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patria Frias-Colón, J.), entered January 11, 2024. The order denied the petition, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award dated May 18, 2023, in effect, confirmed that arbitration award, denied, as academic, the petition to confirm the arbitration award dated January 10, 2023, and, in effect, dismissed the proceedings.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

New York City Transit (hereinafter the Transit Authority) suspended the petitioner's employment without pay. In an arbitration award dated January 10, 2023 (hereinafter the January 2023 award), the arbitrator determined that the appropriate discipline for the petitioner was a time-served suspension and completion of an anger management program. In a second arbitration award, dated May 18, 2023 (hereinafter the May 2023 award), the arbitrator determined that the January 2023 award made the petitioner's completion of the anger management program a condition precedent to her reinstatement. In connection with these awards, the petitioner commenced two related proceedings against the Transit Authority pursuant to CPLR article 75: the first to confirm the January 2023 award and the second, inter alia, to vacate the May 2023 award. In an order entered January 11, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition, among other things, to vacate the May 2023 award, in effect, confirmed the May 2023 award, denied, as academic, the petition to confirm the January 2023 award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceedings. The petitioner appeals.

"'It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached'" (Matter of Adams v Veolia Transp. Servs., 242 AD3d 1196, 1197, quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479). "A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award bears a heavy burden and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence" (Matter of Board of Educ. of the Yonkers City Sch. Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 185 AD3d 811, 812; see Matter of NRT N.Y., LLC v St. Arromand, 216 AD3d 641, 642). "'[A]n arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice'" (Matter of Tauber v Gross, 216 AD3d 1066, 1068, quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d at 479-480). "'Where, as here, an arbitration award was rendered after a consensual arbitration process pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the award may not be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power'" (Matter of Henry v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 230 AD3d 1241, 1242, quoting Matter of Lewis v New York City Tr. Auth., 183 AD3d 738, 738; see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]). "An award 'is irrational only where there is no proof whatever to justify the award'" (Matter of Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 216 AD3d 644, 645, quoting Matter of Reddy v Schaffer, 123 AD3d 935, 937).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the May 2023 award violated this standard (see Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326, 333; Matter of Professional Firefighters Assn. of Nassau County, Local 1588, Intl. Assn. of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v Village of Garden City, 119 AD3d 803, 803). Moreover, the May 2023 award was not indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511, as it did not leave the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, it resolved the controversy before the arbitrator, and it did not create a new controversy (see id. § 7511[b][1][iii]; Matter of County of Nassau v Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc., 213 AD3d 661, 663; Matter of Rokeach v Salamon, 193 AD3d 937, 939).

"[A]rbitrators relinquish all powers over the parties to the arbitration upon issuance of a final award and, therefore, are precluded from modifying or reconsidering that award" (American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 35 NY3d 64, 71; see Matter of County of Nassau v Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc., 213 AD3d at 663). Here, the May 2023 award did not improperly modify the January 2023 award, which was indefinite and nonfinal insofar as it left the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations regarding the duration of the petitioner's suspension (see Matter of Rosenberg v Schwartz, 176 AD3d 1069, 1071; Matter of Board of Educ. of Amityville Union Free School Dist. v Amityville Teacher's Assn., 62 AD3d 992, 994).

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

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

Registration is full for the New York State Workers' Compensation Board 2026 Conference

2026-09-02T10:10:37.281-04:00

The waitlist has also reached maximum capacity.

If you were not able to register for the conference, you will be able to view conference presentations on the Board’s website following the event.

Visit the conference page on the Board’s website for additional information, including the full schedule, speaker bios, travel information, CME and CLE programs, and more.

Sign up for email/text notifications to receive the latest conference updates.

Appellate Division reverses Supreme Court's granting the Employer's petition to vacate an arbitration award

2026-09-02T09:00:00.000-04:00

The petitioner [Employer] issued a notice of personnel action seeking the termination of the services of Employee, who had been employed for several years, for alleged misconduct and, or, incompetence. Employee's union, the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., A.F.S.C.M.E., Local 1000, A.F.L.-C.I.O., by its Local 830 [CSEA], commenced an arbitration proceeding challenging Employee's termination.

The arbitrator found, among other things, that Employee "committed misconduct and/or incompetency" but reduced the penalty imposed from termination of employment to suspension without pay, with loss of time served, which equated to an unpaid suspension of approximately 15 months, and directed the Employee's return to his employment. Employer then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to modify or vacate the arbitration award.

Supreme Court determined that Employee's termination was warranted and proper and that Employer was not obligated to return Employee to his employment. CSEA and Employee appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, observing that "Collective bargaining agreements commonly provide for binding arbitration to settle contractual disputes between employees and management," opined that when the parties agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator courts generally play a limited role".

In the words of the Appellate Division, [numerous court citations omitted]:

1. "An application to vacate an arbitration award may be granted only in narrow circumstances, including where "an arbitrator . . . exceeded his [or her] power" (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii])";

2. "Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power";

3. "The scope of the public policy exception to an arbitrator's power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow, existing only where a court concludes that there are strong and well-defined policy considerations embodied in constitutional, statutory, or common law that the final result creates an explicit conflict";

4. "The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence";

5. "Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies";

6. "A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one. Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice"; and

7. "An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached".

The Appellate Division opined that Employer failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should have been vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his power noting that "Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the arbitrator properly declined to consider evidence of misconduct that occurred, before certain dates, explaining that the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] governing this dispute provided that "[f]or any incompetence or misconduct alleged to have occurred on or after January 1, 1995, . . . no discipline may be imposed more than one (1) calendar year after such occurrence unless said incompetence or misconduct would, if proved in a court of competent jurisdiction, constitute a crime."

None of Employee's misconduct or incompetence was alleged to have been criminal or to have prevented the Employer from timely bringing charges. Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that arbitrator properly adhered to the CBA by disregarding evidence of misconduct that occurred outside the limitation period.

The Appellate Division then noted that Employer failed to identify any public policy, statute, or regulation that required the termination of [Employee's] employment rather than a lengthy suspension.

Finding the Supreme Court should have denied the Employer's petition, the Appellate Division reinstated the arbitration award and remit the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of an appropriate judgment (citing CPLR 7511[e]; 7514[a]).

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

Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited

2026-09-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

An employee [Plaintiff] serving with a New York State agency [Employer] was served with a notice of discipline seeking to terminate Plaintiff's employment with the Employer based on 11 charges of misconduct and insubordination. Plaintiff, represented by his Union, filed a grievance. Ultimately the matter was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator determined that the Employer followed the procedures mandated by the relevant collective bargaining agreement with respect to the issuance of a notice of discipline, rejected Plaintiff's challenge to the Employer's service of the notice of discipline as untimely, determined that termination of Plaintiff's employment was the appropriate disciplinary penalty under the circumstances, and denied Plaintiff's grievance.

Plaintiff then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order vacating the arbitration award. Supreme Court, among other things, denied the Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division, noting that "Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited", observed that "It is well settled that a court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power", citing a number New York State court decisions including Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, and Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, ALF-CIO, 6 NY3d 332.

In addition, the Appellate Division said "contrary to the [Plaintiff's] contention, he failed to demonstrate that the arbitration award violated a strong public policy, was irrational, or clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power and failed to present evidentiary proof of actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator, and said "the award discloses no bias".

Addressing the penalty imposed on Plaintiff, termination, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 NY3d 1065, opined that "the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."

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

Determining if the employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees

2026-08-31T09:00:00.000-04:00

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, Petitioner appealed an order of the Court of Claims which granted the State of New York's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petitioner's claim.

Petitioner commenced this action in New York State's Court of Claims seeking to recover damages for personal injuries he alleged he had suffered when "he was assaulted by a correction officer". State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, contending that it could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The Court of Claims granted the State's motion and Petitioner appealed the Court of Claims' ruling.

The Appellate Division, citing Rivera v State of New York, 34 NY3d 383, observed that "Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer — including the State — may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment", provided that the tortious conduct is 'generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment'".

In determining if an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment for purposes of determining vicarious liability of an employer courts consider:

1. The connection between the time, place and occasion for the act;

2. The history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice;

3. Whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee;

4. The extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and

5. Whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated.

Further, in cases involving a use of force, whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment requires consideration of whether the employee was authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of his or her employment.

In the instant action, the Court of Claims granted the State's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim, finding that the State could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims' ruling, observing that "the [State] established, prima facie, that the correction officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted the [Petitioner]" and Petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "the Court of Claims properly granted that branch of the [State's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the [Plaintiff's] claim".

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 21, 2026 and reported by NYPPL pro bono which may be of interest to readers

2026-08-29T04:00:00.000-04:00

New York Health Policy Monitor Published by I.H. Michaels, LLC, an independent health policy and data analytics practice is informational and does not constitute legal or policy advice. For questions, pricing for organizations, or data services inquiries, contact: info@ihmichaelsllc.com

Houston adopted a new law clarifying landlords’ obligation to provide air conditioning in rental units. Many jurisdictions have no such rules, raising concerns about health and safety as the planet warms. Read More

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

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

Reimagining Permitting and Licensing with AI: A Blueprint for Cities & Counties This guide explores how cities and counties can modernize permitting and licensing with a unified approach that improves collaboration, strengthens public trust and positions communities for long-term growth. DOWNLOAD

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

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

Deliver better government. Inside and out. Turn experience insights into action and drive measurable impact with one FedRAMP High authorized platform. Learn more

Unlock what's next for AI Discover lessons from government leaders on AI, finance ops, and change management at PayIt GovLab. Get your free pass

Appellate Division finds employment agreement did not provide for certain health insurance premium payment claimed by retiree

2026-08-28T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff, the school district's former District Superintendent, and the School District [District] had entered into an employment agreement pursuant to which Plaintiff was hired as the District's superintendent.

As relevant in the instant litigation, the employment agreement provided that Plaintiff and her qualified dependents "shall be eligible, during retirement, for continuing health, dental and vision insurance coverages under the plan(s) available through the District" and that the District "will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premiums of such coverage."

Upon her retirement in 2017, Plaintiff obtained retiree health insurance through the District's plan. Several years later, Plaintiff applied for Medicare Part B—an insurance plan not available through the District—and paid premiums for that coverage. Plaintiff then asked District for reimbursement for the Medicare premiums she had paid.

The District denied Plaintiff's request on the ground that the District's plan did not allow individuals who received 100% of the retiree health coverage paid for by the District to receive reimbursement for Medicare Part B premiums.

Claiming "breach of contract", Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking reimbursement of Medicare premiums paid by Plaintiff and a declaration that the District was required to pay such premiums for her and her qualified dependents'. Supreme Court granted District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division said that the District met its initial burden on the motion inasmuch as it had submitted the employment agreement, Plaintiff's deposition testimony, the District's policy documents, and its health plan documents ... all of which established that the employment agreement did not require the District to reimburse Plaintiff for the premiums for Medicare Part B, which was not an insurance plan offered by the District.

The Appellate Division's decision noted that the agreement provided that Plaintiff was entitled to "continuing health, dental and vision insurance coverages under the plan(s) available through the District" but Plaintiff sought "reimbursement for premiums under a Medicare plan not provided through the District".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement of the premiums for the Medicare Part B coverage Plaintiff had purchased.

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

Claimant denied unemployment insurance benefits after failing to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine

2026-08-27T10:00:00.000-04:00

The Workers' Compensation Benefits Appeals Board's found that Claimant for unemployment insurance benefits was disqualified from receiving such insurance benefits "because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause" by failing to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine as required by her employer, the New York State Unified Court System.

The text of the Appellate Division's ruling sustaining the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is set out below:

In the Matter of the Claim of Roxalana T. Jordan, Appellant.

Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided and Entered: July 9, 2026

CV-24-0840

Calendar Date: May 27, 2026

Before: Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher And Mcshan, JJ.

Roxalana T. Jordan, Brooklyn, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Dennis A. Rambaud of counsel), for respondent.

Aarons, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 12, 2023, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

In September 2021, claimant was notified by her employer, the Unified Court System, that all judges and nonjudicial personnel were required to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine by September 27, 2021 in order to continue employment, unless otherwise approved for an exemption due to a medical reason or sincerely held religious belief. Claimant submitted a written religious exemption request seeking to be exempt from the vaccination requirement, which request the employer denied. Claimant thereafter submitted a medical exemption request, which request was also denied. In addition, claimant submitted an amended religious exemption request, which was not considered by the employer. Claimant's employment was ultimately terminated for failure to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine, prompting her to apply for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Department of Labor, as is relevant here, issued an initial determination finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Following various hearings, an Administrative Law Judge sustained that determination, and that decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in a decision filed October 12, 2023. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment, and whether their conduct is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, are factual issues for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Gardner [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1464, 1465-1466 [3d Dept 2025] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Palmieri [Commissioner of Labor], 243 AD3d 970, 971-972 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Salloum [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1394, 1396 [3d Dept 2025]; see also Frazee v Illinois Dept. of Employment Sec., 489 US 829, 833 [1989]). In her initial written religious exemption request, claimant stated, "In God We Trust. My religious beliefs and practices do[ ] not require or mandate or force[ ] the use of legal or illegal drugs." At the hearing, claimant explained that her religion — one she declined to disclose — believes in "self-autonomy of the body" and not being forced to take illegal or legal drugs. Claimant acknowledged, however, that her religion does not prohibit her from being vaccinated but, rather, it is her choice whether to be vaccinated. Claimant further testified that she amended her religious exemption request once her initial request was denied, asserting a generalized concern about the content of the vaccine. No further information about her religious beliefs or tenets of her undisclosed religion was provided.

Regarding her request for a medical exemption, claimant failed to provide any requisite documentation from any medical health professional, asserting only that the COVID-19 vaccine is contraindicated and ill-advised based upon "recent conversations with [her] medical professionals" given her "current heath condition and status" — a medical condition she deemed unnecessary to disclose. Given the vague and generalized information in support of her religious and medical exemption requests, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessments, the record supports the Board's findings that claimant did not establish that her refusal to comply with the employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief but, rather, was based on personal and secular reasons (see Matter of Tandian [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1105, 1106-1107 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 910 [2026]; Matter of Gardner [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d at 1466; Matter of Ocasio [City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.-Commissioner of Labor], 237 AD3d 1412, 1415-1416 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 906 [2025]) and, further, that there was insufficient medical information to assess the basis or validity for the requested medical exemption (see Matter of Smith [Roswell Park Cancer Inst. Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 227 AD3d 1344, 1346-1347 [3d Dept 2024]). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see Matter of Des Abbayes [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1199, 1200-1201 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Cosma [Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Ctr.-Commissioner of Labor], 236 AD3d 1121, 1123-1124 [3d Dept 2025]). Claimant's remaining contentions are either not properly raised in this proceeding or are without merit.

Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

New York State Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers

2026-08-27T01:00:00.000-04:00

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its webinar series for workers and their advocates, and there is still time to register!

Workers’ Comp 202 is a deeper dive into best practices workers can use to access their workers’ compensation benefits. This presentation will cover:

understanding labor market attachment,
details on benefit periods and how benefit rates are calculated,
the importance of items such as the degree of disability and the Carrier Continue Payments (CCP) order,
how advocates can help workers and comply with privacy provisions,
The Board’s New York Medical Treatment Guidelines, and more!

The sessions are free and there will be time for your questions.

Register here

Thursday, August 27, 2026
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Tuesday, September 29, 2026
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

More information

Visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the Board’s website for additional resources.

You can also call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov.

Having trouble?

If you are having trouble registering for or attending either of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

2026 Conference

Don't miss the Board's conference on October 16, 2026.

This full-day program is open to anyone with a professional interest in workers' compensation and will provide multiple Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit-bearing opportunities.

Evaluating conflicting medical evidence and the credibility of witnesses in determining the eligibility of an applicant for General Municipal Law §207-a (2) disability retirement

2026-08-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff, a retired firefighter, challenged his former employer's [City] determination which denied Plaintiff application for accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a (2).

At the hearing held prior to the City issuing its decision, Plaintiff presented evidence that he was involved in an on-duty motor vehicle accident while he was driving a City fire truck. and that he suffered neck and right shoulder injuries that rendered him physically unable to return to work as a firefighter.

Although City did not dispute Plaintiff claim that Plaintiff was permanently disabled, the City's examining physician testified that Plaintiff's prior medical history indicated that his injuries began before the date of motor vehicle accident Plaintiff contended was the cause of his disability.

The Hearing Officer found both Plaintiff's physician's and the City's physician's testimony to be credible. However the Hearing Officer said the opinion of the City's expert was more persuasive in light of the City's physician's review of Plaintiff's pre-accident medical history in contrast the absence of testimony by Plaintiff's physician's concerning Plaintiff's "pre-accident medical history".

The Appellate Division found "The Hearing Officer 'was entitled to weigh the parties' conflicting medical evidence and to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and [w]e may not weigh the evidence or reject [the Hearing Officer's] choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists".

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the City's decision and dismissed Plaintiff's petition.

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

New York State's medical fee schedules revised proposal update

2026-08-25T16:19:23.958-04:00

In keeping with the goals of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) to provide quality and efficient care to injured workers, and in response to comments received during the public comment period, the Board plans to file a revised proposal for the updates to the Official New York Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedules. 

This revised proposal will be published soon in the State Register and on the Board’s website. A Subject Number will be issued when it is published.

Questions?

Email Regulations@wcb.ny.gov with questions.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

2026-08-25T09:00:00.000-04:00

On August 24, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were posted on the Internet.

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

Brentwood Union Free School District – Building Access (Suffolk County) District officials could improve how they 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, compromising building security and safety.

Broadalbin-Perth Central School District – Building Access (Fulton County, Montgomery County and Saratoga 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.

East Rochester Union Free School District – Building Access (Monroe 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.

Fort Johnson Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Board Oversight (Montgomery County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. It did not adopt comprehensive bylaws and written financial policies and procedures to help ensure financial transactions were properly authorized, recorded and reported. The board also did not review and approve disbursements before payment, implement an effective claims auditing process, regularly review financial reports or provide guidance to the treasurer on maintaining accounting records. The board did not maintain meeting minutes, file required foreign fire insurance tax proceeds reports with DiNapoli’s office or monitor the company’s loan program.

Green Island Union Free School District – Building Access (Albany 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.

Hopkinton Fire District – Claims Auditing (St. Lawrence County) Auditors reviewed 47 claims totaling $145,549. Except for minor discrepancies, which auditors discussed with district officials, the claims were adequately supported, for proper district purposes and authorized before payment. There were no recommendations as a result of this audit.

Ischua Fire District – Claims Auditing and Annual Financial Reports (Cattaraugus County) The board did not properly audit claims prior to payment and the district’s annual financial reports have not been filed with the State Comptroller’s office for more than 15 years. Without a thorough and documented audit of claims, the district had an increased risk for improper or unauthorized expenditures to be paid and that errors, irregularities, or misuse of funds could go undetected and uncorrected.

Moravia Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Treasurer’s Duties (Cayuga County) The treasurers did not properly account for all receipts and disbursements. As a result, the board of directors lacked reliable information that was needed to manage the company’s financial activities, and assurance that receipts were properly collected, recorded, safeguarded and deposited and disbursements were adequately supported, properly approved, accurately recorded and made for appropriate company purposes.

Niskayuna Central School District – Building Access (Albany County, Saratoga County and Schenectady 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.

Onondaga Cortland Madison (OCM) Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Building Access (Onondaga County, Cortland County and Madison County) OCM BOCES officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, OCM BOCES had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Union-Endicott Central School District – Building Access (Broome County and Tioga 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.

Town of Wilton – Cybersecurity (Saratoga County) Town officials did not adequately safeguard network and cloud-based user account access from cybersecurity threats. As a result, town officials cannot be assured that information technology (IT) systems are secured and protected against unauthorized use, access, manipulation and loss.

Village of Cassadaga – Cybersecurity (Chautauqua County) The board and village officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard IT assets from cybersecurity threats. Because the board and officials did not establish and maintain a comprehensive IT asset inventory, they could not effectively track these assets through their lifecycle. Additionally, policy, oversight and other internal control weaknesses increased the risk that IT assets and the data contained in IT systems could be lost, damaged or compromised.

Village of Lacona – Cybersecurity (Oswego County) The board and officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard IT systems from cybersecurity threats. The board and officials did not develop or adopt written IT policies, provide employees with cybersecurity awareness training or develop an IT contingency plan to help minimize the risk of data loss or suffering a serious operational interruption.

Village of Medina – Water and Sewer Billing and Collections (Orleans County) Although auditors determined $296,867 of water and sewer collections were deposited timely and intact, the clerk-treasurer did not ensure water and sewer user charges were billed accurately or that delinquent accounts were managed in accordance with village code and board-adopted policies. The clerk-treasurer also did not establish clear written procedures for collecting and depositing user charges, properly segregating duties or providing adequate oversight of billing and collection activities.

###

Additional compensation to be paid to employees of a school district for additional services must be transparent and prospective

2026-08-24T09:00:00.000-04:00

In three separate appeals, Petitioners sought to annul an agreement between the Board of Education of the School District [Board] and its deputy superintendent [DS] providing for the DS to assume the duties of the Superintendent. Petitioners named multiple board members, school officials, and the school attorney [Respondents]. Because the appeals presented similar issues of fact and law, they were consolidated for decision by the Commissioner of Education [See 8 NYCRR 275.18].

DS had agreed, in addition to her current responsibilities, to assume the duties of acting superintendent while the superintendent was on leave of absence. The board then negotiated a “pay differential” with DS to compensate her for these additional duties and the Board retroactively approved payment to the DS in the amount of $200 per day from July 1 through September 3, 2025 [the addendum].

Petitioners contended that the Board lacked authority to compensate DS for her additional services because her contract already required that DS “[s]erve in the absence of the Superintendent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District” and argued that "any additional compensation constitutes an illegal gift of public funds". Ultimately, Petitioners appealed to the Commissioner of Education, seeking, among other relief, an order precluding the Board from implementing the addendum and the reimbursement of any funds paid to DS already paid to DS pursuant to the addendum.

The Board argued that the appeals (1) must be dismissed for improper service and (2) on the merits as the addendum "appropriately compensated [DS] for services rendered above and beyond the scope of [DS's] existing duties".

Commissioner Rosa, noting that in an appeal to the Commissioner the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief, found that Petitioners had not satisfied these burdens.

The Commissioner said she agreed with Respondents that paragraph 11 of DS's contract, which requires her to “[s]erve] in the absence of the Superintendent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District,” does not preclude DS from receiving additional compensation for such services and found that the provision addressing the "chain of command in the superintendent’s absence" is not meant to cover “prolonged absence[s]” such as that which occurred in the instant situation.

In the words of Dr. Rosa: "As proof, [Respondents] attach a copy of the most recent [DS's] contract", which includes “duties well beyond those set forth” in paragraph 11, including 'budget formulation and administration, pupil course of study and curriculum, public relations, personnel management and labor relations.' Thus, the board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in compensating [DS] for her service as acting superintendent in summer 2025."

Addressing Petitioners' argument that the additional compensation paid to DS constituted a gift of public funds within the meaning of Article VIII, Section I of the New York Constitution, the Commissioner, citing Appeal of Moss, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,861, said “This section generally prohibits the expenditure of school district money for the benefit of private parties unless it is in furtherance of a proper public purpose and is undertaken pursuant to a … properly authorized contract under which the municipality receives fair and adequate consideration”. Here, the board received additional consideration in the form of additional duties performed by DS.

The Commissioner concluded her decision by observing that "While the appeals must be dismissed, I admonish the board to ensure that all agreements to provide additional compensation to district employees are transparent and prospective. Retroactive payments create an appearance of impropriety, even where, as here, there is no evidence that such impropriety occurred".

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 21, 2026 and reported by NYPPL pro bono which may be of interest to readers

2026-08-22T02:00:00.000-04:00

From Reactive to Autonomous: Rethinking IT Operations Learn how real-time endpoint intelligence turns detection into instant, governed action against AI-driven threats. Register Now

Autonomous IT Starts Here: Tanium Converge 2026 Join 2,000+ IT and security professionals at Tanium Converge 2026. 120+ sessions. 90+ hands-on labs. See Tanium Atlas in action. Register Now

Accelerate Eligibility Decisions Across the Benefit Lifecycle Improve your processes during initial determinations, mid-year reviews, and renewals to ensure continuous coverage. Learn More

Inside Successful Government AI Transformation Hear leadership lessons from the former CTO of Seattle and San Jose. Listen now

Why Government Modernization Isn't About Technology A former city CTO shares what separates successful transformation from stalled initiatives. Listen now

Concerns about environmental impacts from data centers have dovetailed with a broader backlash to AI. Dozens of jurisdictions have adopted or debated moratoriums, hoping for more time to adopt robust regulations — or for the AI bubble to burst. Read More

How Reno Transformed Boards and Commissions to Build an Award-Winning Governance Model Learn how Reno centralized governance workflows, reduced administrative burden, improved compliance and delivers a more accessible experience for residents — all without increasing costs. READ NOW

Nominate a Rising HHS Leader Current leaders of state and local health and human services systems are invited to nominate Deputy Directors and program directors to participate in HHS 2030 programming. LEARN 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

Free AI Policy Generator for Government Answer a few questions. Get a ready-to-use policy tailored to your state. Create Your Policy Now

From Reactive to Autonomous: Rethinking IT Operations Learn how real-time endpoint intelligence turns detection into instant, governed action against AI-driven threats. Register Now

Autonomous IT Starts Here: Tanium Converge 2026 Join 2,000+ IT and security professionals at Tanium Converge 2026. 120+ sessions. 90+ hands-on labs. See Tanium Atlas in action. Register Now

Accelerate Eligibility Decisions Across the Benefit Lifecycle Improve your processes during initial determinations, mid-year reviews, and renewals to ensure continuous coverage. Learn More

Inside Successful Government AI Transformation Hear leadership lessons from the former CTO of Seattle and San Jose. Listen now

Why Government Modernization Isn't About Technology A former city CTO shares what separates successful transformation from stalled initiatives. Listen now

The doctrine of estoppel will not serve to provide eligibility for retirement benefits where the relevant statute clearly shows claimant does not qualify for such benefit

2026-08-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Petitioner, a member of the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System, began working as a correction officer in 1980 at what is now the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS]. In June 2015, while still employed by DOCCS, Petitioner accepted a part-time job with the Village of Dannemora and in September 2015, Petitioner applied for service retirement pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 based on his employment with the Village. Petitioner's retirement application, however, did not indicate his employment as a correction officer with DOCCS.

Petitioner resigned from his position as a correction officer with DOCCS on September 25, 2015 while Petitioner's last day of work with the Village was on September 28, 2015. Petitioner's Article 15 service retirement from the Village took effect two days later, September 30, 2015.

In May 2017, after Petitioner had been receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Article 15, Petitioner applied for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 14 Performance of Duty Disability Retirement benefits based upon injuries he purportedly sustained as a correction officer pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law §507-b.

The Retirement System initially approved Petitioner's application, but thereafter rescinded such approval, explaining that "a performance of duty disability retirement was available to, as relevant here, only members 'in the [R]etirement [S]ystem . . . based on employment as a correction officer.'"

The Retirement System explained that Petitioner had left his position with DOCCS on September 25, 2015, and that his employment with the Village ended three days later, after which he retired under Article 15.

Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer sustained the Retirement System's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits sought by Petitioner.

The Retirement System accepted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Petitioner appealed the Retirement System's decision.

The text of Appellate Division's ruling affirming the Retirement System decision is set out below:

In the Matter of Charles Mussaw, Petitioner,
v
Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, Respondent.
Decided and Entered: August 6, 2026
CV-25-0282
Calendar Date: May 12, 2026
Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Powers And Corcoran, JJ.
Law Firm of Alex Dell, PLLC, Albany (Alex C. Dell of counsel), for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of counsel), for respondent.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a member of the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System, began working as a correction officer for what is now the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) in 1980. In June 2015, while still employed with DOCCS, petitioner accepted a part-time job with the Village of Dannemora, Clinton County. In September of that same year, petitioner applied for service retirement under Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, based on his employment with the Village. Petitioner's application did not reference his employment as a correction officer. He resigned from his position as a correction officer later that month, on September 25, 2015, and his last day working for the Village was September 28, 2015. His article 15 service retirement from the Village took effect two days later.
Approximately 20 months later, in May 2017, after petitioner had been receiving benefits under article 15, he applied for Retirement and Social Security Law article 14 performance of duty disability retirement based upon injuries he purportedly sustained as a correction officer (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b). The Retirement System initially approved his application, but thereafter rescinded it, explaining that a performance of duty disability retirement was available to, as relevant here, only members "in the [R]etirement [S]ystem . . . based on employment as a correction officer." The Retirement System observed that petitioner had left his position with DOCCS on September 25, 2015, and that his employment with the Village ended three days later, after which he retired under article 15. Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer upheld the denial. Respondent accepted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Section 507-b, part of article 14 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ny member in the uniformed personnel in institutions under the jurisdiction of [DOCCS] . . . who becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for the performance of duties as the natural and proximate result of," among other things, "an injury, sustained in the performance or discharge of [their] duties . . . shall be paid a performance of duty disability retirement allowance equal to that which is provided in [Retirement and Social Security Law § 63]" (Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b [a]). "[T]he statute was clearly intended to compensate correction officers who, because of the risks created by their daily contact with certain persons who are dangerous and profoundly anti-social[,] become permanently disabled" (Matter of Laurino v DiNapoli, 132 AD3d 1057, 1058 [3d Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]). In contrast, "Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 provides a comprehensive scheme of retirement benefits through which" some members of the Retirement System, including village employees, "may receive a pension upon retirement from service . . . after meeting specified age and length-of-service requirements" (Matter of Roberts v Murphy, 2 NY3d 641, 644 [2004]). However, certain members of uniformed services are specifically excluded from Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 (see Lynch v City of New York,23 NY3d 757, 766 [2014]), including — contrary to petitioner's suggestion on this appeal — correction officers employed by DOCCS (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 600 [a] [2] [a]).
Petitioner argues, in effect, that there is no language in the relevant statutory provisions precluding a member of the Retirement System from making simultaneous — or in this case, consecutive — applications under both section 507-b of article 14 and article 15. Therefore, petitioner contends that respondent's denial of his application on the basis that his final employment was with the Village, rather than DOCCS, was not a reasonable interpretation of the pertinent statutes and must be set aside. We disagree with this flawed logic and confirm respondent's determination.
Respondent "is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Lurry-Carter v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 248 AD3d 1471, 1472 [3d Dept 2026] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Retirement and Social Security Law § 74 [b]; see e.g. Matter of Gallante v DiNapoli, 228 AD3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 909 [2024]). When respondent's determination turns upon a question of statutory interpretation, this Court's principal responsibility "is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (Matter of Walsh v New York State Comptroller, 34 NY3d 520, 524 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Strzepek v DiNapoli, 227 AD3d 1353, 1355 [3d Dept 2024]).
As the record in this case confirms — specifically, testimony from respondent's director of disability services in its division of retirement — respondent has consistently made an initial determination of whether a member of the Retirement System is eligible for benefits under article 14 or, instead, under article 15 based on the member's job title at the time of retirement (see Matter of Earle v Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller, 128 AD3d 1317, 1318 [3d Dept 2015]). As the director of disability services explained, petitioner had to give up his membership status as a DOCCS correction officer in order to be eligible for article 15 benefits (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 600 [a] [2] [a]). By making this election, petitioner necessarily became ineligible for benefits under article 14, including a performance of duty disability retirement under section 507-b.
Other provisions of the Retirement and Social Security Law support respondent's reading of section 507-b. There is no evidence that the Legislature intended to afford former correction officers an opportunity to apply for performance of duty disability benefits after they have left their employment with DOCCS for an article 15 position and applied for service retirement based on that new job.FN1 Numerous provisions in the Retirement and Social Security Law recognize that applicants may submit "simultaneous[ ]" applications for both service retirement benefits and benefits specific to a disability sustained during their employment if they follow certain procedures — namely, that the service retirement application is filed without prejudice to the simultaneous application for disability retirement (Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 [f]; see e.g. Retirement and Social Security Law §§ 62 [c]; 507-f [f]; 507-h [g]). Even if such a simultaneous application was authorized here, petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits was made nearly two years after he successfully applied for service retirement benefits, and his service retirement application did not state that it was without prejudice to a simultaneous application. Moreover, if, as petitioner posits, the Legislature intended to permit former correction officers who transitioned to municipal service before retirement to apply for service benefits under article 15 without prejudice to applications for performance of duty disability retirement benefits under section 507-b, it could have included a provision in section 507-b authorizing such applications, as the Legislature has included in various other provisions in the Retirement and Social Security Law. Accordingly, respondent's determination was neither irrational nor inconsistent with the applicable statutory provisions (see Matter of Earle v Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller, 128 AD3d at 1318). Relatedly, because there is no dispute that petitioner's job at the time of retirement was with the Village, not with DOCCS, substantial evidence plainly supports respondent's denial of his application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits on the basis that his final job title did not qualify for article 14 benefits.
Finally, petitioner argues that his application should not have been denied because he was given bad advice about his retirement options by employees of respondent and/or the Village. However, it is well settled that "the doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility to retirement benefits where by statute a person clearly does not qualify, even if the advice of the administrative employees was erroneous" (Matter of Radwan v DiNapoli, 237 AD3d 1342, 1345 [3d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and reject them as meritless.
Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Footnote 1
Both the record in this case and prior appeals before this Court make evident that such a transition in job titles, with the aim of maximizing pension benefits under the most favorable plan available to a particular Retirement System member, is commonplace, albeit not always successful (see generally Matter of Vladyka v DiNapoli, 238 AD3d 1362 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Radwan v DiNapoli, 237 AD3d 1342 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Strzepek v DiNapoli, 227 AD3d 1353). Our recent decision in Matter of Ballard v DiNapoli (250 AD3d 1207 [3d Dept 2026]) demonstrates the consistency of respondent's rule: where respondent determines that an applicant did not have bona fide paid employment to qualify them for benefits under article 15, respondent will nevertheless grant benefits under article 14 because the applicant's final legitimate job title was as a correction officer.

Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed

2026-08-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this CPLR Article 78 Petitioner sought judicial review of a determination of the City of Newburgh [City] to adopt the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 in which the hearing officer found the Petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and recommended the termination of Petitioner's employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the City's decision.

City had filed an answer to Petitioner's appeal with objections in point of law, including that the Petitioner failed to serve a notice of timely claim as required by Section C6.47 of the City's Charter. Petitioner thereupon moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). The Appellate Division, however, vacated so much of the Supreme Court's order as granted the Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, dismissed the Article 78 proceeding and ordered one bill of costs to the City.

The Appellate Division, citing Clayton Indus., Inc. v City of Newburgh, 17 AD3d 309, noted that Section C6.47(A) of the City's Charter provides that with respect to non-tort claims:

1. No action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless "a written verified claim ... was served on the City ... within three months after the accrual of such claim";

2. Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City; and

3. Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed.

Noting that it is undisputed that Petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued as required by Section C6.47 of the City Charter , "unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "... since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the [Petitioner's] motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim ... and it should have dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the [Petitioner] failed to timely serve a notice of claim as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh".

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

Determining if statements between an employee and the employee's employer constitute slander per se

2026-08-19T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this action, Plaintiff and third-party defendant, a Town employee [Employee], became embroiled in a personal dispute after the Town prohibited Employee from using the Town's equipment to move certain gear associated with a concession stand business that Employee operated on property maintained by the Town.

Employee sought and obtained a decision by a New York State Supreme Court justice which denied the Town's motion for summary judgment dismissing Employee's complaint and granted Employee's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Employee's complaint, which asserts a single cause of action, slander per se. Town appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's decision "on the law without costs", granted Town's motion to dismiss the Employee's appeal and dismissed Employee's complaint.

Turning to the issue of whether the Employee's statements made during the incident are actionable, the Appellate Division said it must consider the statements "in [their] applicable context" and "in terms of [their] effect upon the average listener" and [to] determine whether a reasonable listener would consider the statements to connote fact or nonactionable opinion, we must evaluate:

"(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood;

"(2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and

"(3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal . . . listeners that what is being . . . heard is likely to be opinion, not fact".

In the instant matter the Appellate Division concluded that the Employee's inflammatory insults "are nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole, particularly given the rhetorical manner in which the statements were uttered".

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

Court Notices 75 / Rules of the Chief Administrator

2026-08-18T16:41:00.000-04:00

AMENDMENT OF RULE

Rules of the Chief Administrator

Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby amend paragraph 2 of subdivision (b) of section 137.1 and subdivision (B) of section 8 of Appendix A to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, effective November 1, 2026, to read as follows:

Section 137.1.

Application

(b) This Part shall not apply to any of the following:

(2) amounts in dispute involving a sum less than $1,000 or more than [$50,000] $100,000, except that an arbitral body may hear disputes involving other amounts if the parties have consented;

APPENDIX A. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Section 8. Selection and Assignment of Neutrals

B. Unless otherwise approved by the Board:

1. Disputes involving a sum of less than [$10,000] $20,000 shall be submitted to one attorney arbitrator;

2. Disputes involving a sum of [$10,000] $20,000 or more shall be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators, which shall include at least one nonlawyer member of the public.

Posted In the New York State Register, August 12, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Vol. XLVIII Division of Administrative Rules Issue 32

2026-08-18T10:37:00.000-04:00

GOVERNOR HOCHUL ANNOUNCES RATIFICATION OF FIVE-YEAR LABOR AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION

Contract Approved With Overwhelming PEF Member Support

Agreement With PEF Covers 60,000 New York State Employees

Agreement Includes Yearly Salary Increases, Increases in Location Pay and Changes in Health Benefits

On August 18, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced the ratification of a five-year labor agreement with the Public Employees Federation (PEF) which includes approximately 60,000 New York State employees in a wide variety of professional, scientific and technical titles. The agreement, which runs until April 1, 2031, won the approval of 88 percent of PEF members who cast ballots.

“Public employees provide vital services every day to New Yorkers everywhere, and this agreement recognizes their hard work, professionalism and contributions,” Governor Hochul said. “New York values its talented public servants, and this agreement underscores my administration’s support and dedication to the Empire State’s public workforce. I thank PEF’s leadership in helping realize this deal, and I applaud PEF’s members for their continued commitment to serving New Yorkers all across this state.”

Public Employees Federation President Wayne Spence said, “While contract negotiations can be challenging, we appreciate Governor Kathy Hochul’s leadership in forging an agreement that works for the 62,000 professional, scientific, and technical staff represented by the NYS Public Employees Federation as well as for the residents of New York. We look forward to continuing to work with the Governor to improve the safe, efficient and effective delivery of services for every New Yorker.”

The ratified contract includes raises in each of the five years of the agreement, as follows: 4.5 percent, 4 percent, 3.5 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent. The contract also includes boosts to location pay and several other unit-specific payments. Members also will gain 20 hours of paid pre-natal leave and an increase in the cap for sick leave accumulation. The agreement also includes reasonable updates to health insurance that will reduce costs for members by eliminating certain co-pays and providing incentives to use in-network providers.

###

Basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law

2026-08-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its monthly webinar series for employers and human resources (HR) representatives.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2026, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m., the Board’s Office of the Advocate for Business will present on the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law.

The one-hour presentation will also cover:

who needs coverage and who does not need coverage,
how and when to report an injury or illness,
considerations when hiring independent contractors, laborers, and domestic workers,
lowering premiums, and
penalties and where to go for assistance with them

…all topics business owners and other employers, as well as their HR staff, should know about!

The session is free and there will be time at the end for questions.

Click to Register here

More information and contacts

Visit the Advocate for Business section of the Board’s website for additional resources.

You can also call the Office of the Advocate for Business at (518) 486-3331 or email advocatebusiness@wcb.ny.gov.

Having trouble?

If you are having trouble registering for or attending either of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

A message from New York State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli concerning the status of New York City’s finances

2026-08-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

A message posted on the Internet by New York State's Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli addressing New York City’s finances indicates that the City's finances have been through a tumultuous period in recent years, with significant federal, State and City revenues enabling substantial growth in spending, some of which has been in response to various emergencies.

In recent months, the City reflected these rising costs more fully, improving transparency and addressing billions in budgetary risks, but revealing an ongoing structural imbalance. Identifying sustainable methods for balancing future budgets will require care to weigh the potential threats of such actions to the City’s fiscal stability, competitiveness and affordability.

The City’s fiscal fortunes have improved modestly this year on the back of a resilient economy, led by financial services, which has produced robust revenues to help sustain programs and services. Still, the City has gone another year without increasing reserves and faces a spending growth trajectory that will require hard choices if revenues do not come in better than expected.

Recent cost containment efforts suggest the City does recognize that rising costs for certain expenses, particularly for education and social services, are pressuring City finances, underscoring the need to proactively manage costs to avoid outcomes that worsen its structural budget issues or lead to deterioration in services. Mindful of what is transpiring in Washington, the City must make balanced and prudent fiscal choices while managing its substantial operational needs and encouraging employment and business growth to enhance its economic and tax revenue base.

The City’s recent move to designate agency staff with generating savings via efficiencies is welcome and efforts at expanding this approach now suggest a recognition of this challenge. Monitoring City staffing and performance indicators and responding to shifting demands for City resources remain critical for ensuring basic services are provided in an efficient and targeted manner. Clear communication to the public about the City’s fiscal challenges, the options available, and the information guiding the City’s efforts to balance its budget will be critical, particularly if the economic outlook weakens or if spending cannot be contained further without service cuts.

Ultimately, future economic growth in the City, and thereby the State, relies on providing services that improve affordability, quality of life, and opportunity for all residents. As always, my office will continue to closely monitor developments in the City and provide independent analysis to support sound fiscal management.

Comptroller DiNapoli's Message includes "An Executive Summary" and addresses:

Economic Trends

Changes Since the June 2025 Plan was announced

State and Federal Actions

Citywide Savings Programs

Revenue Trends

Expenditure Trends

Debt Service and Capital Spending

Semi-Autonomous Entities and Other Issues

Click HERE to access the Comptroller's Message posted on the Internet.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 14, 2026 which may be of interest to NYPPL readers and posted by NYPPL pro bono

2026-08-15T01:00:00.000-04:00

The Next Benefits Cliff Isn’t Fraud. It’s Overload. Rising federal verification mandates are overwhelming state agency infrastructure. Here’s why legacy systems are failing and how consent-based and automated tools can close the gap. READ NOW

Making Sense of AI in Public Services A guide for choosing between generative AI tools, chatbots, and agentic AI. DOWNLOAD

Nominate a Rising HHS Leader Current leaders of state and local health and human services systems are invited to nominate Deputy Directors and program directors to participate in HHS 2030 programming. LEARN MORE

New York City and the MTA are studying a possible thermal energy network in Lower Manhattan, hoping to capture excess heat from subway platforms and store it for use in public buildings during the winter. Read More

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

How BAM Modernized the U.S. Army with Low-Code A veteran-owned partner delivered a mission-critical app in just six months, work that once would have taken years. Read Case Study

New York Public Personnel Law

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 4, 2026

Labor Day Weekend Travel Advisory

Awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in CPLR Article 78 actions

Arbitrators relinquish all powers over the parties to the arbitration upon issuance of a final award and are precluded from modifying or reconsidering that award

Registration is full for the New York State Workers' Compensation Board 2026 Conference

Appellate Division reverses Supreme Court's granting the Employer's petition to vacate an arbitration award

Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited

Determining if the employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 21, 2026 and reported by NYPPL pro bono which may be of interest to readers

Appellate Division finds employment agreement did not provide for certain health insurance premium payment claimed by retiree

Claimant denied unemployment insurance benefits after failing to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine

New York State Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers

More information

Having trouble?

2026 Conference

Evaluating conflicting medical evidence and the credibility of witnesses in determining the eligibility of an applicant for General Municipal Law §207-a (2) disability retirement

New York State's medical fee schedules revised proposal update

Questions?

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

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

Additional compensation to be paid to employees of a school district for additional services must be transparent and prospective

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 21, 2026 and reported by NYPPL pro bono which may be of interest to readers

Concerns about environmental impacts from data centers have dovetailed with a broader backlash to AI. Dozens of jurisdictions have adopted or debated moratoriums, hoping for more time to adopt robust regulations — or for the AI bubble to burst. Read More

How Reno Transformed Boards and Commissions to Build an Award-Winning Governance Model Learn how Reno centralized governance workflows, reduced administrative burden, improved compliance and delivers a more accessible experience for residents — all without increasing costs. READ NOW

Nominate a Rising HHS Leader Current leaders of state and local health and human services systems are invited to nominate Deputy Directors and program directors to participate in HHS 2030 programming. LEARN 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

Free AI Policy Generator for Government Answer a few questions. Get a ready-to-use policy tailored to your state. Create Your Policy Now

The doctrine of estoppel will not serve to provide eligibility for retirement benefits where the relevant statute clearly shows claimant does not qualify for such benefit

Petitioner resigned from his position as a correction officer with DOCCS on September 25, 2015 while Petitioner's last day of work with the Village was on September 28, 2015. Petitioner's Article 15 service retirement from the Village took effect two days later, September 30, 2015.

The Retirement System initially approved Petitioner's application, but thereafter rescinded such approval, explaining that "a performance of duty disability retirement was available to, as relevant here, only members 'in the [R]etirement [S]ystem . . . based on employment as a correction officer.'"

The Retirement System explained that Petitioner had left his position with DOCCS on September 25, 2015, and that his employment with the Village ended three days later, after which he retired under Article 15.

Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer sustained the Retirement System's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits sought by Petitioner.

The Retirement System accepted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Petitioner appealed the Retirement System's decision.

The text of Appellate Division's ruling affirming the Retirement System decision is set out below:

Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed

Determining if statements between an employee and the employee's employer constitute slander per se

Court Notices 75 / Rules of the Chief Administrator

Basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law

More information and contacts

Having trouble?

A message from New York State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli concerning the status of New York City’s finances

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 14, 2026 which may be of interest to NYPPL readers and posted by NYPPL pro bono

New York State's medical fee schedules revised proposal update