New York Public Personnel Law

Appellate Division finds Petitioner failed to demonstrate that circumstances existed that would give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, disability, or sex

2026-05-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

Petitioner, a former firefighter, filed an administrative complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] charging his former employer [Respondent] with employment discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and sex. After a hearing, an administrative law judge [ALJ] made certain findings and a recommendation that the administrative complaint be dismissed. The Commissioner of the SDHR adopted the ALJ's findings and recommendation and dismissed the administrative complaint. Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to Executive Law §298 and CPLR Article 78 to review the SDHR's determination. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division.

Observing that judicial review of SDHR's] determination made after a hearing is limited to consideration of whether substantial evidence supports the agency determination", explained that "Courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [the SDHR's] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists" and found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the SDHR's determination that the Petitioner failed to establish, prima facie, that he was discriminated against on the basis of age, disability, and sex.

In the words of the Appellate Division, Petitioner "failed to demonstrate that similarly situated people who did not share his age, disability, or sex were treated more favorably than he was treated". Further, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioner also failed to demonstrate "that circumstances existed that would give rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of age, disability, or sex", noting that although the Petitioner was served with three notices of disciplinary charges ... the record contains substantial evidence that the charges were based wholly upon [Petitioner's] misconduct rather than discriminatory animus.

Addressing Petitioner's claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, Appellate Division said "A hostile work environment exists where the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment". Citing La Marca-Pagano v Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 129 AD3d 918, the Appellate Division observed that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the SDHR's determination that the Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to his claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Turning to Petitioner's claim of "retaliation" the court said that a retaliation claim is analyzed under "a burden-shifting framework" and the employee bears the burden to establish a prima facie retaliation claim. Then the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of discrimination "by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision".

If the employer meets its burden, then the burden shifts back to the employee "to prove that the legitimate reasons proffered by [the employer] were merely a pretext for discrimination".

Although SDHR found that Petitioner established a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that he received a notice of disciplinary charges just five days after filing an unlawful discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], SDHR's had determination that Petitioner's employer had rebutted Petitioner's prima facie case of retaliation with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, or nonretaliatory reason for its challenged actions with substantial evidence.

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

Selected posts from the Internet during the week ending May 8, 2026

2026-05-10T08:20:58.342-04:00

2026 AI Risk and Readiness Report Most organizations are making decisions about AI security without a full picture of how it’s being used across their environment. Based on new data from over 1,200 cybersecurity professionals, this report highlights where those visibility gaps commonly exist and what they mean for managing data and risk. DOWNLOAD

The H.R. 1 Mandate: Modernizing Medicaid and SNAP H.R. 1 adds substantial administrative obligations to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Learn why automation is essential to handle growing workloads and complexity. DOWNLOAD

How Public-Private Partnerships Help Governments Keep Promises Tight budgets meet rising expectations — partnerships offer a path forward. READ NOW

Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW

Earning Utility Customer Trust as Payments Evolve Trust has become the foundation upon which everything else rests: customer engagement, digital adoption, operational efficiency, and even long-term capital investments. This guide looks at where that trust breaks down and how utilities can strengthen it. DOWNLOAD

Why Identity Is Now Core HHS Infrastructure For HHS agencies, identity verification is no longer a support function. This paper explains how modern identity platforms give agencies a consistent, risk-based way to verify new applicants and returning beneficiaries. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

Payment of back salary upon reinstated from a disciplinary suspension without pay

2026-05-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court granted a petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to vacate or annul the determination of the Employer discharging Plaintiff from his employment and directed that the Employer conduct a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(1)(c). Employer appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which had denied that portion of Plaintiff's petition seeking a judgment that Petitioner be immediately awarded "full back pay."

The Appellate Division explained that although Plaintiff may ultimately be found to be entitled to backpay starting 30 days after his suspension without pay, the amount of such backpay, if any, and the application of any offsets to any amount awarded in consideration of other employment or from unemployment benefits, "is a matter that should be addressed in the first instance at the hearing 0rdered by the court".

It should be noted that in 1985 §§76 and 77 of the New York State Civil Service Law*, which apply to certain employees in the classified service of a public employer, were amended by Chapter 851, Laws of 1985. §§76 and 77 currently provide that an employee reinstated pursuant to either of these subdivisions is to receive the salary to which he or she would have otherwise been entitled, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefit that he or she may have received during such period. The amendment did not include the clause providing for a "reduction" in the amount to be paid for any such compensation the individual earned in other employment or occupation during during such period of the employee's suspension without pay.

* See https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/search?q=back+pay.

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

New York State's Commissioner of Education directs the respondent school districts to allow all students to access the school districts' facilities that most closely align with their gender identity

2026-05-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

Petitioners in this administrative appeal to New York State's Commissioner of Education, Dr. Betty A. Rosa, the parents of transgender students attending the Respondent New York State public school districts, contended that:

[1] Certain resolutions adopted by the two Respondent school districts were "arbitrary and capricious because [of their reliance] upon an erroneous interpretation of federal law"; and

[2] Certain resolutions adopted by the two Respondent school districts "prohibiting transgender and gender nonconforming students from using facilities that align with their gender identity are contrary to State law, including [New York State's] Dignity for All Students Act".

The Petitioners sought annulment of the Respondents' resolutions and that the Commissioner direct the Respondent school districts to permit their transgender children "to access school facilities, including bathrooms and locker rooms, that align with their gender identity".

Commissioner Rosa sustained the Petitioners' appeals.

In consideration of the scope of Commissioner Rosa's decision, rather than attempt to summarize the Commissioner's comprehensive ruling, NYPPL has elected to recommend that the reader click on Decision No. 18,726 | Office of Counsel to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Appellate Division affirms Supreme Court's denial of Plaintiff's motions seeking a writ of mandamus and the recusal of the presiding justice in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding

2026-05-06T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court granted

[1] the City of New York's cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition seeking to compel the City's Department of Investigation [DOI] to investigate alleged criminal activity targeting Plaintiff while she was employed by the New York City Public Advocate's Office; and

[2] the City's motion dismissing Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 action; but

[3] rejected the Plaintiff's efforts seeking the designated Justice's voluntary "recusal" in the Article 78 matter. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Plaintiff lack of success in obtaining a writ of mandamus in Supreme Court, explaining that a writ of mandamus may be sought "to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty", but a writ of mandamus cannot be used "to compel an act in respect to which a public officer may exercise judgment or discretion".

Observing that DOI's decision not to investigate the matter was neither arbitrary and nor capricious, the Appellate Division directed the Public Advocate's Office to have [Plaintiff] report the alleged criminal conduct to the police.

Addressing Plaintiff's efforts seeking the "self-recusal" of the assigned Justice in the CPLR Article 78 action, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court providently rejected Plaintiff's efforts concerning the recusal of the assigned Justice as the assigned Justice was not a party to and had not been an attorney or counsel "in this proceeding".

Nor, said the Appellate Division, did Plaintiff contend that the assigned Justice "had 'an interest' in the proceeding or was related to the parties" and in the absence "of any statutorily mandated disqualification and any legitimate suggestions of bias or impartiality" which Plaintiff could have demonstrated, the assigned Justice's decision "not to recuse" was appropriate as a matter of personal conscience.

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

OATH Administrative Law Judge recommends the Appointing Authority suspend the employee for 30-day without pay rather than terminate the employee found guilty of misconduct

2026-05-05T09:00:00.000-04:00

New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D. Turilli recommended that a 30-day suspension without pay be imposed as the disciplinary penalty on the Respondent, an Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”) motor vehicle operator, rather that terminating the employee from the position as proposed by the appointing authority.

OCME alleged that Respondent acted negligently by entering a decedent’s home unaccompanied by the police officer who waited outside and brought OCME into disrepute when the New York Post reported that he was criminally charged with stealing a handbag from the decedent.

The ALJ granted Respondent’s motion to preclude footage from the officer’s body worn camera after finding that such footage was sealed by New York State's Criminal Procedural Law as official records relating to Respondent’s arrest and prosecution, but permitted the introduction of surveillance video because recordings made in a private building in the regular course of business are not official records.

Relying on the recordings, OCME employee testimony, and documentary evidence, the ALJ found that Respondent inefficiently, negligently, or carelessly performed his duties by entering decedent’s apartment without police supervision in violation of an unambiguous agency directive and OCME’s common practice.

However, the ALJ found that OCME failed to prove Respondent brought the agency into disrepute, finding that while the New York Post article may have brought OCME negative attention, it focused on the theft of the bag, a criminal charge of which Respondent was acquitted, and which was neither alleged nor proven at Petitioner's OATH trial.

Accordingly, the ALJ found that the 30-day suspension, rather than termination from the position, was the appropriate penalty to impose on Respondent under the circumstances.

Click HERE to access Judge Turilli findings and recommended penalty.

Recent New York State audits of municipalities posted on the Internet

2026-05-04T09:00:00.000-04:00

On May 1, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following local government audits were issued.

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

Town of Alexander – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Genesee County) The former clerk did not properly record, deposit, report or remit collections, and did not process transactions in a timely manner. The former clerk was arrested in July 2024 and arraigned on charges of grand larceny, falsifying business records, forgery and corrupting the government. In January 2025, the former clerk pleaded guilty to petit larceny, resigned from the position and made restitution to the town. Auditors also found that annual collections recorded decreased by approximately $17,000 (43%) from 2018, the year prior to the former clerk taking office, to 2022.

Town of Davenport – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Delaware County) The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor filed the 2024 annual financial report with DiNapoli’s office 152 days past the statutory deadline. The supervisor also did not properly maintain financial information for liabilities and fund equity in the balance sheet reports, hindering the board’s ability to monitor the town’s financial operations throughout the year.

Town of Sodus – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Wayne County) The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor also failed to prepare or file annual financial reports for fiscal years 2021 through 2024. Lastly, the supervisor did not perform monthly bank reconciliations, provide the board with financial reports or ensure that seven highway department employees were paid the correct overtime wages.

Howard Public Library – Board Oversight (Steuben County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. As a result, the board lacked the necessary financial information to manage the library’s financial condition and could not ensure its financial activities were adequately accounted for, recorded and reported. Consequently, the library had an increased risk of budgetary issues and services impact as well as increased risk of theft, waste and abuse of resources.

Cuylerville Volunteer Fire Department Inc. – Financial Oversight (Livingston County) Department officials and membership did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations because they did not adopt a code of ethics, detailed bylaws or financial policies or enforce the limited financial provisions in the bylaws. They also did not adequately segregate financial duties, implement compensating controls or provide guidance related to recording and reporting financial transactions to the treasurer.

Town of Knox – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Albany County) The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor also did not prepare or file annual financial reports for fiscal years 2021 through 2024. In addition, the supervisor did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports.

###

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending May 2, 2026

2026-05-02T09:05:00.000-04:00

The Tech Helping Teams Get Work Done Explore how public sector leaders are adopting AI, automation, and safety technologies to solve today’s workforce challenges. This new research highlights what’s working, what workers want, and where public agencies are seeing real ROI across operations, training, and service delivery. DOWNLOAD

Inside the 2026 ISAC Annual Summit: Cybersecurity Priorities for the Decade Ahead Three days. Nine tracks. Real solutions for modern cybersecurity challenges. Learn More and Register Now

What’s Next for Your PeopleSoft Environment? See how organizations are planning the future of their PeopleSoft environments in Washington, DC on May 12. Reserve your spot

AI Fraud: Can Your Agency's Defenses Keep Up? This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD

AI Is Reshaping Criminal Justice. The Real Question Is How We Govern It AI can improve efficiency and fairness — but only with strong oversight and accountability. READ NOW

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW

The 2026 State of Digital Government Report Government teams aren’t short on data, they’re short on clarity. This report breaks down how leading agencies are turning fragmented insights into faster services, higher participation, and measurable outcomes. Backed by benchmarks from nearly 1,300 public sector professionals, it outlines what’s working right now and where gaps are quietly costing time, trust, and resources. DOWNLOAD

Navigating H.R. 1 SNAP Challenges It’s no secret that stricter work and income requirements may increase your administrative burden. Download Checklist

Securing the Reset: How Idaho Strengthened Security and Governance This case study explores how transitioning to a FedRAMP-authorized environment enabled greater accountability, streamlined operations and enhanced protection of sensitive data, while reducing the burden of legacy systems. DOWNLOAD

Balancing Security, Staffing, and System Demands Join IT leaders in Washington, DC on May 12 to learn how agencies are balancing security demands with limited resources. Learn More

Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York's Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law is not a firefighter's exclusive remedy for an injury suffered while traveling to a reported boat fire aboard a ship owned by the Fire District

2026-05-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

A former volunteer firefighter [Firefighter] with the Fire District [District] appealed the grant of the District's motion for summary judgment by a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Firefighter had suffered injury to his foot while traveling aboard a ship owned by the District to the reported site of a boat fire on the Hudson River when Firefighter extended his leg to fend off a collision with another vessel.

Having previously obtained compensation under New York State’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, Firefighter filed the instant claim in response to the District’s petition in the United States District Court seeking to limit its liability to the value of the vessel pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. §30523, and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

Firefighter's claim alleged (i) negligence and unseaworthiness pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104; (ii) unseaworthiness under Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946); and (iii) negligence under general maritime law.

A Federal District Court had granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Firefighter was not eligible to bring claims pursuant to the Jones Act or Sieracki, and that Firefighter's exclusive remedy were those provided by New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, and that Firefighter was prohibited to bring a general maritime law claim. Firefighter appealed the District Court’s ruling, with the exception of the District's Court's denial of the Firefighter's Jones Act claim.

The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in granting the District's motion for summary judgment after finding that Firefighter was not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness extended to a Sieracki seaman and in ruling that New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law barred Firefighter's federal negligence claim under general maritime law.

In the words of the Second Circuit, "Although only a small part of [Firefighter's] employment took place on the navigable waters, and he therefore was not a seaman under the Jones Act, on the occasions when he was engaged in a firefighting mission on the waters aboard the [District's ship] his work was distinctly maritime. This case is unlike the cases of injuries to land workers, whose presence on a ship was only for transportation to their land-based jobs". "If [Firefighter's] job, when joining a firefighting mission on [the District's vessel] was to do waterborne firefighting and rescue, that job was no less maritime while he was doing it than it would have been if he had been permanent crew to a firefighting vessel. [Firefighter] asserts that he was in the bow preparing to secure the vessel and that when he extended his foot, his purpose was to avoid a collision, both tasks being seaman’s jobs carrying seaman’s risks. Neither the Fire District nor the [District Court] has advanced a persuasive reason for granting summary judgment dismissing [Firefighter's] claims."

The Second Circuit said it concluded that the reasons giving effect to the State’s exclusive remedy provision so as to deprive Firefighter of whatever maritime remedies he can prove would “work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, [and] interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.”

While the Second Circuit said it disavowed any automatic conclusion that “wherever a maritime interest is involved, no matter how slight or marginal, it must displace a local interest, no matter how pressing and significant,” the Circuit Court said it read the Supreme Court precedents "as protecting the applicability of maritime remedies, as against conflicting state law, when, federal maritime tort policy engages sufficiently with the facts, so that displacement of the federal remedy because of a state’s exclusivity provision would impair uniformity of the federal maritime law".

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the District Court for further consideration, stating that "We leave it to the proceedings in the district court on remand to determine whether this evidence should be believed and whether [Firefighter] was doing seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards".

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

The intra-military immunity doctrine bars certain lawsuits if the alleged injuries arise out of or are experienced the course of an activity with the State

2026-04-30T08:12:12.145-04:00

Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 challenging his discharge from the New York Guard [NYG]* and New York Division of Military Affairs' [DMNA] alleged failure to respond to his FOIL request. Plaintiff sought, among other things, records related to the charges he had attempted to file.

Plaintiff had served as a noncommissioned officer with the NYG. During his service, he was counseled over a series of months regarding various disciplinary incidents, most relevant here allegations that Plaintiff had made unauthorized inquiries into the number and identities of NYG service members who had been awarded State Guard Association of the United States [SGAUS] honors.

After Plaintiff attempted to initiate court martial proceedings by purporting to file formal charges with the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs [DMNA] against several officers involved in disciplinary incident in which he had been involved, he was honorably discharged from the NYG.

DMNA cross-moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Article 78 petition on the grounds that Plaintiff's "challenge to his discharge was nonjusticiable and ... that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his FOIL claims". Supreme Court granted DNMA's cross-motion and dismissed the proceeding explaining that Plaintiff's challenge to his discharge was barred by the intra-military immunity doctrine and Plaintiff's FOIL challenge was moot. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Addressing the doctrine of intra-military immunity, which applies to both the federal armed forces and a state organized militia, the Appellate Division noted that the doctrine "bars a lawsuit if 'the injuries [for which a plaintiff seeks to recover] arise out of or are in the course of activity incident' involving the plaintiff's military service". However, opined the court, civilian judicial review of internal personnel matters of the military "are subject always to the civilian control" and that of the legislative and the executive branches of State government.

Finding that Plaintiff's challenge was nonjusticiable under the intra-military immunity doctrine, the Appellate Division held Plaintiff's "unsupported assertion that his discharge was retaliatory does not necessitate a contrary conclusion" and, contrary to Plaintiff's contentions, the status of SGAUS as a nonmilitary organization is of no moment inasmuch as Plaintiff's misconduct underlying his honorable discharge stems from his actions related to his service with the NYG.

The Appellate Division then held that Supreme Court properly dismissed Plaintiff FOIL claims as moot, inasmuch as the record reflects that he received responses to his requests.

Addressing Plaintiff's claim that the disclosures were inadequate, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by first pursuing an administrative appeal.

* Akin to the New York National Guard, the New York Guard is authorized by Article VIII of New York State's Military Law and maintained at the Governor's discretion (See Military Law §165 [1]). The New York Guard is made up of unpaid volunteers and "augments and supports the New York National Guard," but they "are not federal military reservists as are members of New York State's Army National Guard, the State's Air National Guard" and the State's "Naval Militia".

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

Courts do not choose between differing professional opinions as that is the function of the administrative authority as long as it acts reasonably and responsibly

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 filed by a candidate for appointment as a police officer [Plaintiff] seeking judicial review of the determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service [Department], affirming its earlier determination, that the Plaintiff was not qualified for employment as a police officer, Supreme Court dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court ruling, with costs.

Plaintiff had sought employment as a police officer with the Suffolk County Police Department. Candidates for such employment are required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation, among other things. Petitioner was not recommended for the position and the Civil Service Department notified Plaintiff that he had not been found qualified for the appointment.

Plaintiff appealed the Department's determination, submitting an independent evaluation by a psychologist who disagreed with the conclusion of the Department's evaluator. Ultimately the Department concluded that there was no significant evidence to support reversing its disqualification of Plaintiff and affirmed its prior determination that the Petitioner was not qualified for employment as a police officer.

Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeing judicial review of the Department's determination. Suffolk County, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f), moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. In an order and judgment, Supreme Court, in effect, granted the County's motion, denied the Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court had properly granted the County's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, explaining that "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". The court also observed that "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it".

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "If a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational" and noted that in an Article 78 proceeding, "the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder".

Determining that the Supreme Court had properly concluded that the Department's decision disqualifying the Petitioner appoint to the position of police office was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division stated that "In determining whether a candidate is medically qualified to serve as a police officer, the appointing agency is 'entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel, even if those findings are contrary to those of professionals retained by the candidate'".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "It is not for the courts to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere".

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

A writ of prohibition is available to challenge an official or an agency proceeding, or when it is about to proceed, beyond its alleged lawful jurisdiction

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

An employee [Employee] filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR] alleging that a member [Respondent] of the New York State Assembly discriminated against her on the basis of gender and sexually harassed her during her employment.

DHR found probable cause to proceed to investigate Employee's complaint and then amended the Employee's discrimination complaint by adding the New York State Assembly [NYSA] as a Respondent in the DHR in its investigation of the complaint submitted by Employee.

NYSA, contending that DHR did not give NYSA "constitutional due process notice of the charges against it because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing on its part", initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a Writ of Prohibition* barring DHR from proceeding with the Employee's discrimination claim to the extent it named the NYSA in the DHR proceeding as a Respondent. Supreme Court denied NYSA's application for the Writ of Prohibition and NYSA appealed.

Citing Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783, and other New York State court decisions, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that "The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address 'whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction' ".

The Appellate Division also opined that "Prohibition will not lie where the party has access to another adequate legal remedy" and that "[E]rrors of law, which of course may be verbalized, but incorrectly, as excesses of jurisdiction or power, are not to be confused with a proper basis for using the extraordinary writ", quoting the Court of Appeals' decision in Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59.

Addressing NYSA's argument that DHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and thus NYSA was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies, the Appellate Division said it rejected that contention because the "[remedy] for asserted error of law in the exercise of [DHR's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review and following exhaustion of that remedy in subsequent judicial review pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law", concluded that NYSA "will suffer no irreparable harm . . . by waiting to challenge [DHR's] findings, if necessary, on the merits after [DHR] investigates [the Employee's] complaint".

* A writ of prohibition is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is typically issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the ground that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction." Other ancients writs include a writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction, a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority do you act]. New York State's Civil Practice Law and Rules [C{LR] set out the modern equivalents of such surviving ancient writs.

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

Employee served with disciplinary charges after failing to comply with supervisor's directives

2026-04-27T13:09:14.921-04:00

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Kevin F. Casey recommended a 24-day suspension without pay after finding that a housekeeping aide employed by the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation disobeyed orders to remove his gloves on two occasions and failed to wear his uniform shirt on four occasions

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

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

2026-04-27T09:00:00.000-04:00

The New York State Office of the Advocate for Injured Workers 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 questions.

Register here

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

For more information visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the New York State Workers Compensation Board’s website for additional resources or call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov.

Having difficulties registering?

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

Selected Webinars scheduled for the week ending May 1, 2026

2026-04-27T08:30:18.672-04:00

MONDAY, APRIL 27 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET - High-Impact AI: Powering Public Innovation with Advanced Workstations Learn how edge AI and high-performance workstations help public agencies process data faster, reduce latency and drive innovation. REGISTER

TUESDAY, APRIL 28 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - Modernizing Critical Physical Infrastructure for Today's Public-Sector Demands Learn how to identify risks in aging power, rack and cooling systems and modernize physical infrastructure to improve resiliency, support cybersecurity and enable reliable service delivery. REGISTER

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - AI Readiness for Public Capital Programs Join this webinar to learn how to evaluate AI, ask the right vendor questions, and protect funding, data, and accountability from the start. REGISTER

THURSDAY, APRIL 30 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET Protecting Public Innovation: Security for Advanced Computing Workflows Explore strategies to secure high-performance computing environments while enabling innovative solutions. REGISTER

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending April 24, 2026

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

Webinar: AI Relief, Not Revolution Explore why AI adoption stalls and how to create a more coordinated approach. Save Your Seat

City & State published an op-ed by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Items addressed: layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term business growth. Download

The 2026 Cyber Threat Trends Report Cyber incidents aren't slowing down; they're getting faster, more coordinated, and harder to detect. Drawing on over 500,000 hours of real-world investigations, this report breaks down how attackers are getting in, what they target first, and why recovery is becoming the real battleground. DOWNLOAD

Planning What’s Next for PeopleSoft Explore how organizations are evolving PeopleSoft to meet growing security and compliance demands in Atlanta on April 29. Join the Conversation

Your voice shapes the future of public finance Take a few minutes to help us capture what government finance teams are really facing in 2026. Share Your Perspective

What are finance teams ac ross government dealing with? Weigh in on the challenges and priorities defining public sector finance this year. Take the Survey

Modernizing Outdated Identity Tools in the Public Sector Many public sector organizations are trying to secure complex, modern IT environments with identity systems that were designed decades ago. This guide outlines a practical path to modern identity architecture. DOWNLOAD

The 2026 Cyber Threat Trends Report Cyber incidents aren't slowing down; they're getting faster, more coordinated, and harder to detect. Drawing on over 500,000 hours of real-world investigations, this report breaks down how attackers are getting in, what they target first, and why recovery is becoming the real battleground. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

Benchmarking AI and Digital Performance Across Government Explore the data, benchmarks, and trends shaping modern public service delivery and what they mean for your agency. Download the Report.

AI-Powered Agencies are delivering 2.5x Higher Engagement Gain insights for improving service delivery and trust with digital benchmarks from thousands of governments. Get the Benchmarks.

Safer, Smarter AI Adoption Starts Here Help your team build shared AI fluency without adding complexity or risk. Get Details

AI in Government: What's Delivering Value; How Agencies Can Get Started Watch this webinar to hear real-world examples of how public-sector teams are applying agentic AI to streamline workflows, establish clear governance, and scale with accountability. WATCH NOW

Collaboration Tools that Protect the Public Conversation Explore how secure, integrated collaboration tools help communities respond faster to public safety incidents. WATCH NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Moving Beyond Training: Needed, a Unified Approach Cyber Risk Explore how a unified cybersecurity approach helps agencies understand where risk is building and respond sooner. WATCH NOW

The employer's failing to seek vacation or modification of an arbitration award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days period requires that the arbitration award be confirmed

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

Supreme Court denied, in part, an employee organization's petition to confirm an arbitration award. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling on the law, without costs, vacated the modification and confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety.

The Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court should have confirmed "the entirety of the arbitration award", explaining that CPLR §7510-a(a) addresses public sector employee arbitrations and provides that "[t]he court shall confirm an award in a public sector arbitration proceeding upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to the party, unless an application to vacate or modify the award ... is made within ninety days after the delivery of the award to the party seeking to modify or vacate".

In this instance the employer did not seek to vacate or modify the award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court should have confirmed the arbitration award as the employee organization had preserved its claim by explicitly addressing the 90-day limitations period in its petition.

The Appellate Division also noted that the fact that an employee organization is not itself an employee of the employer but rather the representative of the public sector employees in the relevant collective bargaining unit does not change the application of CPLR §7510-a.

In addition, the Appellate Division observed that the legislative history of CPLR §7510-a "does not set forth any rationale for excluding unions from the definition of employees", citing the Assembly Memorandum in Support of the Bill, [Bill Jacket, Chapter 679 of the Laws of 2023].

The Court then directed its Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

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

When may a municipality be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff

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

Appellate Division observed that this appeal presented it with an opportunity to provide "additional clarity" concerning when a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff thereby subjecting the municipality to liability in negligence for breaching that special duty, and, relatedly, when the municipality may rely on the governmental function immunity defense.

For the reasons set out in the decision of the Appellate Division in the instant matter, the Appellate Division held that a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a protected party, or the parent of a protected party, when responding to a request to enforce the "stay away" provisions of a court order such as the one at issue in this case.

The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court erred when it granted the government defendants' separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

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

Individual found guilty of stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds

2026-04-22T09:00:00.021-04:00

On April 20, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Albany County District Attorney Lee C. Kindlon and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that a resident of Woodstock, New York was sentenced to five years’ probation for his role in stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds to which he was not entitled.

“As technology advances so do fraudsters, and this case shows that collaboration works in holding defendants accountable when they attempt to use deception to steal taxpayer dollars,” Kindlon said. “Kudos to the Comptroller’s Office, New York State Police and our Financial Crimes Unit in uncovering this attempt to defraud the state.”

“This sentencing significantly demonstrates the effectiveness of the measures taken to safeguard the application process for rental assistance. The State Police will continue to work to impede the use of false information to prevent individuals from fraudulently obtaining funds they are not entitled to. I commend the New York State Comptroller’s Office, our State Police members, and Albany County District Attorney’s Office for their combined effort in this sentencing,” James said.

To perpetrate their scheme, the defendants filed a phony application with the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to fraudulently obtain funding through the ERAP.

The ERAP program was created during the COVID-19 pandemic to help medium and low-income households at risk of eviction. Landlords or tenants could apply to OTDA for funds to cover unpaid back rent and future rent payments. If the tenant met the criteria, the payments would be made directly to the landlord.

The New York State Police received a complaint that a brother and his sister received ERAP funds that they were not entitled to. Based on the complaint, a joint investigation was launched by DiNapoli’s office and the State Police.

###

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, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov .

Court orders terminated probationary employee's reinstatement after employer unable to show the dismissal was made in good faith

2026-04-21T09:00:00.023-04:00

Plaintiff initiated an CPLR Article 78 preceding challenged the Nassau County Sheriff's Department's [Department] decision terminating his employment during Plaintiff's probationary employment as a correction officer. Plaintiff had alleged, among other things, that he was terminated in bad faith after he complained about being assigned excessive overtime hours.

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition, in effect annulling the Department's decision to terminate Plaintiff during his probationary period. The Department appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Citing Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 AD3d 786, Appellate Division noted that the employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law*. However, said the Appellate Division, "The petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof of the alleged bad faith, the violation of statutory or decisional law, or the constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose", citing Matter of Capece v Schultz, 117 AD3d 1045 and Matter of Young v City of New York, 221 AD3d 721.

The Appellate Division held that the Plaintiff had "met his burden of demonstrating that the determination to terminate his probationary employment was made in bad faith" by establishing that his termination of probationary employment followed a complaint he made regarding being assigned excessive overtime hours and the purported failure of the Sheriff's to comply with Rule 20 of the Sheriff's Department Rules and Regulations, which requires equal distribution of overtime, noting that the Department "failed to establish, or even adequately allege, that the termination of the [Plaintiff's] probationary employment was made in good faith".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "properly granted the [Plaintiff's] petition and, in effect, annulled the [Department's] determination".

* In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

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

New York State Comptroller issues local government and school audits and budget reviews

2026-04-20T09:00:00.002-04:00

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits and budget reviews were issued on April 17, 2026

Click on text highlighted in color to access audits issued

Audits

South Hornell Fire Protection Company, Inc. – Disbursements (Steuben County) The board did not ensure disbursements were supported, appropriate or authorized. Weak bylaws, policies and procedures, including debit card safeguards, meant limited oversight. Because the recording secretary generally did not record membership’s authorization of disbursements during monthly meetings in the meeting minutes, 300 disbursements totaling $297,853 lacked documented authorization. Auditors also found 63 disbursements totaling $126,012 that lacked sufficient support to determine appropriateness.

Town of Plattekill – Information Technology (IT) (Ulster County) The board and supervisor did not adequately manage user accounts or implement key IT controls. For example, unused accounts assigned to some former employees remained active for at least seven years. Officials did not adopt a breach notification policy, as required by law, and did not adopt an IT contingency plan for unexpected disruptions or disasters. Officials also did not enter into a written contract with the town’s IT service provider or require employees to take IT security awareness training. Other sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Eagle Mills Fire District No.1 – Records and Reports (Rensselaer County) The board did not monitor financial activity or ensure required records and reports were maintained. The treasurer did not record annual budgets for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 into the central accounting system, necessary for generating statements of operations with budget-to-actual comparisons. The board also failed to have the required annual independent audit of the district’s books since fiscal year 2018. Lastly, the treasurer has not prepared or filed the fiscal year end 2019 through 2024 annual financial reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required by law.

Cicero Volunteer Fire Department – Financial Activities (Onondaga County) Officials did not ensure financial activity was properly recorded, reported or that funds were safeguarded. Auditors identified significant errors and unrecorded transactions. For example, the treasurer recorded $216,088 that was received for a building lease payment twice, which overstated the department’s cash and revenue. The treasurer also did not prepare accurate bank reconciliations, issue customer receipts for collections, and did not deposit collections in a timely manner. The treasurer also did not prepare and submit the annual report for foreign fire insurance tax proceeds to the board and membership and to DiNapoli’s office, as required by law.

Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School – Information Technology (Nassau County) Auditors found that school officials did not implement sufficient controls to protect IT systems and data from unauthorized access, use or loss. Procedures for managing and monitoring user accounts were not established, resulting in 51 unnecessary accounts remaining active. Officials also did not monitor employee internet use. Auditors reviewed internet histories of 14 school employee computers and determined that nine employees used the computers to access websites for personal use, including a user who conducted personal business activities. Lastly, the director of technology was unable to provide the documentation related to the monitoring of the IT vendor’s compliance with the consulting agreement.

Arkport Hose Company No. 1, Inc. – Treasurer (Steuben County) The executive committee lacked reliable information to manage the company’s financial activity because the treasurer did not properly deposit, record or report company funds. The treasurer did not deposit revenues totaling $5,191 in a company bank account within three days of receipt, as required by company bylaws. The treasurer also did not maintain adequate supporting documentation for 95 transactions totaling $55,100, accurately record 48 transactions totaling $21,528, or obtain approval for 37 disbursements totaling $15,951. In addition, the treasurer did not prepare bank reconciliations or provide adequate monthly or annual reports to the board and membership. Lastly, the treasurer did not file the annual form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service, putting the company’s not-for-profit status at risk.

Town of Clermont – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Columbia County) Although the board conducted an audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, the board did not maintain any supporting documentation to show the extent of the work performed or the results of the audit. The supervisor did not prepare and file the 2022 through 2024 annual financial reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required by law. Furthermore, the supervisor provided the board with incomplete monthly financial reports and did not ensure board-approved hourly rates were used to pay the highway department employees.

Budget Reviews

South Country Central School District – Budget Review (Suffolk County) Following the district’s Oct. 22, 2025 disclosure that an unplanned deficit occurred during the 2024-25 fiscal year, stakeholders requested DiNapoli’s office provide an independent review of the district’s finances. The district is on track to incur a 2025-26 fiscal year budget deficit of approximately $8.7 million due to inaccurate estimates in the adopted budget even after accounting for the cost-savings measures, including spending freezes and personnel layoffs. In addition, the district has no available surplus fund balance to mitigate this budgetary deficit. The district reported an unassigned general fund balance deficit of $1.8 million as of June 30, 2025. If current operating trends continue, auditors project the district will have a fiscal year-end deficit of approximately $10.5 million. Finally, district officials indicated the district will need to borrow $6 million to balance the 2026-27 budget. While deficit financing can provide immediate relief, any such borrowing would most likely increase the overall deficit and create future funding gaps due to the district’s reliance on debt to pay for operating expenses.

Wyandanch Union Free School District – Budget Review (Suffolk County) State law as of 2020 authorizes the district to issue serial bonds in an amount not to exceed $4.5 million to liquidate the accumulated deficit in the district’s general fund as of June 30, 2019. Municipalities and school districts that have been authorized to issue obligations to fund operating deficits are required by law to submit their budget to the State Comptroller each year. Auditors determined that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the district’s proposed budget are reasonable and that the district’s proposed budget complies with the tax levy limit. The budget review did not include any recommendations.

Village of Suffern – Budget Review (Rockland County) State law authorizes the village to issue debt not to exceed $5 million to liquidate the accumulated deficits in the village’s general, water, sewer and capital projects funds as of May 31, 2015. Auditors determined that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable, and that the village’s tentative budget complies with the tax levy limit.

###

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

2026-04-18T09:00:00.184-04:00

City & State published an op-ed contribution by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The item addresses the need for companies to be transparent about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is impacting layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term growth. DOWNLOAD

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD

Plan, Act, Recover: Disaster Preparedness in the Public Sector This research report reveals how state and local leaders are using real-time data, AI, and better communication tools to respond to disasters faster and recover stronger. See what 250 public sector leaders say they need to improve. Download

Why Identity Is Now Core HHS Infrastructure For HHS agencies, identity verification is no longer a support support function. This paper explains how modern identity platforms give agencies a consistent, risk-based way to verify new applicants and returning beneficiaries. 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

AI Is Reshaping Criminal Justice. The Real Question Is How We Govern It AI can improve efficiency and fairness — but only with strong oversight and accountability. READ NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

AI in the Room: Making Public Collaboration Smarter, Not Harder Learn how AI-powered meeting tools improve accessibility, collaboration and engagement for hybrid public sector teams. WATCH NOW

ITSM Complexity to Clarity: Modernizing with No-Code and AI Learn how to bring clarity to ITSM complexity through no-code automation, AI and modern ITSM strategies. WATCH NOW

Content + AI: The Future of Public Service Strategies to help government leaders scale secure, compliant AI solutions. WATCH NOW

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Employee terminated after being found guilty of having posted items that featured biased and discriminatory language and images on Facebook

2026-04-17T09:00:00.114-04:00

In this CPLR Article 78 action Plaintiff sought judicial review of a revised determination of the New York State Office of Court Administration's Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adoption of the report and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and recommended the termination the Petitioner's employment as a court officer.

Plaintiff had been employed as a court officer by the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] for approximately 14 years and it was alleged Plaintiff had engaged in specified acts of misconduct when Plaintiff shared 26 posts on Facebook that featured biased and discriminatory language and images. Plaintiff denied the charge.

At the conclusion of Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report finding Plaintiff guilty of each specified act of misconduct and recommended that the Plaintiff be terminated. The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendations and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge issued a revised determination in which he again adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendation and terminated the Plaintiff's employment.

Plaintiff then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge's revised determination.

The Appellate Division, in its decision, noted:

1. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence" (see Matter of Afolayan v Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 229 AD3d 698]";

2. "Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact", which is a "minimal standard", demanding only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable; and

3. "Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently".

The Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's alleged misconduct was supported by substantial evidence as "OCA demonstrated that the biased nature of the [Plaintiff's] comments, which were connected to a public Facebook profile that identified him as a Sergeant with UCS, and violated the internal rules and regulations, as well as the ethical codes, of UCS". The Appellate Division then said "given the public facing nature of the [Plaintiff's] position in a system that requires fairness and equality, the administrative record supports the conclusion that the bias illustrated by the [Plaintiff's] posts negatively impacted UCS's ability to maintain neutrality and serve vulnerable populations".

Addressing Plaintiff's contention that the revised disciplinary determination violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech, the Appellate Division opined that OCA had met its burden of establishing that discipline arising out of the Plaintiff's otherwise protected activity was justified. Further, the Appellate Division opined that the revised determination did not violate the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, "because the prohibition on discriminatory speech was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable to all UCS employees".

Turning to the disciplinary penalty imposed on Plaintiff, the Appellate Division noted that such review "is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" and the administrative penalty imposed "must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The Appellate Division concluded that, contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the "penalty of termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", confirmed the revised disciplinary determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, citing Matter of Phelps v State of N.Y.—Unified Ct. Sys., 208 AD3 880 and Sekul v City of Poughkeepsie, 195 AD3d 622.

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

Grouping students with disabilities for purposes of instruction

2026-04-16T09:00:00.009-04:00

On April 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, certified the question set out below to the New York State Court of Appeals:

“When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under §200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE may pick?”

The Court of Appeals responded, concluding that the required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] §200.6(h)(4) represent alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the described levels of management needs and disabilities.

In light of Court of Appeals' response, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court, holding:

Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education (including resource room, special class, consultant teacher services, integrated co-teaching and related services groups) must be grouped by similarity of individual needs in accordance with the four need areas of:

Academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics
Social Development
Physical Development
Management Needs

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

2026-04-15T09:00:00.015-04:00

Audit reports for the following local governments and school districts were posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller on April 14, 2026.New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the reports posted on the Internet.

City of Mechanicville – Separation Payments (Saratoga County) City officials did not ensure the accuracy of employee separation payments. As a result, three employees received questionable or unsupported payments totaling $15,766 of vacation payouts due to miscalculations and an ineligible retirement incentive. Specifically, auditors determined that three payments totaling $37,118 were inconsistent with the city’s handbook and collective bargaining agreements, which may have resulted in the overpayments. Auditors also found that officials did not have adequate policies or written procedures in place to guide how separation payments should be calculated, approved and reviewed.

City of Mechanicville – Procurement (Saratoga County) Auditors found that officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with policy, statutory requirements or good business practices. Officials made purchases without proper oversight, did not maintain records and did not consistently use a competitive process. Of the sample of 35 purchases totaling $2.26 million reviewed, auditors identified 24 purchases totaling approximately $760,000 that did not comply with the procurement policy or statutory requirements. While the city’s procurement policy was inadequate and inconsistent, it did require department heads to verify that funds were available before making purchases. However, the finance office did not have updated accounting records. Consequently, department heads made purchases without confirming there were available budget appropriations, which led to financial discrepancies and inefficiencies.

City of Mechanicville – Financial Oversight (Saratoga County) The mayor and city officials did not provide oversight of financial operations. As a result, the council could not fully assess the city’s financial condition or make informed decisions. The commissioner did not maintain current accounting records or ensure financial reports were accurate. Bank reconciliations were either not completed or contained large, unresolved variances. Also, the commissioner did not submit two years of annual financial reports (AFRs) to DiNapoli’s office in a timely manner, as required by law. The mayor also did not establish formal procedures to monitor financial reporting or verify the accuracy of accounting records.

Village of Sherburne – Budgeting (Chenango County) The board adopted budgets that underestimated revenues in the general fund and overestimated appropriations in the general, water and sewer funds. As a result, the board levied more taxes than were needed to fund the village’s operations. The board also generated unplanned operating surpluses totaling approximately $1.1 million despite having planned for operating deficits totaling $1.3 million. As a result, none of the appropriated fund balance was needed or used. In addition, the unrestricted fund balance increased by approximately $1.1 million in the general, water and sewer funds. Lastly, the budgets for the 2022-23 through 2025-26 fiscal years did not comply with state law or guidance from DiNapoli’s office and lacked sufficient detail, which reduced transparency and limited effective financial planning.

Village of Victory – Records and Reports (Saratoga County) The clerk-treasurer did not maintain accurate and complete accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly reports or file AFRs in a timely manner, which limited the board’s ability to monitor financial operations. The clerk-treasurer also did not properly prepare bank reconciliations or budget status reports, which lacked pertinent information. As of Sept. 10, 2025, AFRs were filed between 41 and 1,322 days late.

Village of Youngstown – Employee Benefits and Payroll (Niagara County) Village officials did not maintain accurate leave records or ensure payroll payments were properly approved and supported. Employees received payouts and used leave without proper authorization, including $9,802 in unsupported payments, 1,524 unapproved leave hours and 313 compensatory hours accrued without authorization. In addition, village officials made inaccurate payroll payments totaling approximately $2,500.

Village of Churchville – Procurement (Monroe County) Village officials did not consistently solicit competition in accordance with statutory requirements or its procurement policy. Of the approximately $1.4 million in goods and services reviewed, auditors determined officials did not seek competition for purchases totaling $664,748. Specifically, village officials did not always issue requests for proposals, ensure the village received the New York State Office of General Services contract price in lieu of competitively bidding, or obtain the minimum number of written quotes required by the village’s procurement policy. For two purchases totaling $31,397, officials did not obtain any written quotes. In addition, the village’s procurement policy did not include details on when board approval was required prior to making purchases, and officials signed and approved their own purchases.

Plainville Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Onondaga County) The review assessed the Plainville Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Plainville Fire District – Board Oversight, released in October 2021. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations and exceeded its authority by allowing the district treasurer to pay all recurring expenditures without the board’s prior review or approval. To help the board ensure that it provides adequate oversight of fire district operations, the audit contained eight recommendations. The board fully implemented four recommendations, partially implemented three and did not implement one. Until all recommendations are addressed, the board cannot ensure district assets are appropriately safeguarded.

South Orangetown Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Rockland County) The review assessed the South Orangetown Central School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, South Orangetown Central School District – Network User Accounts, released in August 2022. The audit determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit report contained four recommendations. While district officials fully implemented one recommendation, they only partially implemented the remaining three recommendations. As a result, the district’s network continued to have increased risk for unauthorized access, misuse or data loss.

Woodbourne Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Sullivan County) The review assessed the Woodbourne Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Woodbourne Fire District – Board Oversight, released in December 2023. The audit determined that the board and treasurer did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. The audit contained 10 recommendations. The district fully implemented three recommendations, partially implemented four, and did not implement three recommendations. Until all are addressed, the board cannot ensure financial operations are properly monitored or assets are safeguarded.

###

New York Public Personnel Law

Appellate Division finds Petitioner failed to demonstrate that circumstances existed that would give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, disability, or sex

Selected posts from the Internet during the week ending May 8, 2026

Payment of back salary upon reinstated from a disciplinary suspension without pay

New York State's Commissioner of Education directs the respondent school districts to allow all students to access the school districts' facilities that most closely align with their gender identity

Appellate Division affirms Supreme Court's denial of Plaintiff's motions seeking a writ of mandamus and the recusal of the presiding justice in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding

OATH Administrative Law Judge recommends the Appointing Authority suspend the employee for 30-day without pay rather than terminate the employee found guilty of misconduct

Recent New York State audits of municipalities posted on the Internet

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending May 2, 2026

Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York's Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law is not a firefighter's exclusive remedy for an injury suffered while traveling to a reported boat fire aboard a ship owned by the Fire District

The intra-military immunity doctrine bars certain lawsuits if the alleged injuries arise out of or are experienced the course of an activity with the State

Courts do not choose between differing professional opinions as that is the function of the administrative authority as long as it acts reasonably and responsibly

A writ of prohibition is available to challenge an official or an agency proceeding, or when it is about to proceed, beyond its alleged lawful jurisdiction

Employee served with disciplinary charges after failing to comply with supervisor's directives

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

Having difficulties registering?

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

Selected Webinars scheduled for the week ending May 1, 2026

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending April 24, 2026

City & State published an op-ed by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Items addressed: layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term business growth. Download

Planning What’s Next for PeopleSoft Explore how organizations are evolving PeopleSoft to meet growing security and compliance demands in Atlanta on April 29. Join the Conversation

Your voice shapes the future of public finance Take a few minutes to help us capture what government finance teams are really facing in 2026. Share Your Perspective

What are finance teams across government dealing with? Weigh in on the challenges and priorities defining public sector finance this year. Take the Survey

Modernizing Outdated Identity Tools in the Public Sector Many public sector organizations are trying to secure complex, modern IT environments with identity systems that were designed decades ago. This guide outlines a practical path to modern identity architecture. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

Benchmarking AI and Digital Performance Across Government Explore the data, benchmarks, and trends shaping modern public service delivery and what they mean for your agency. Download the Report.

AI-Powered Agencies are delivering 2.5x Higher Engagement Gain insights for improving service delivery and trust with digital benchmarks from thousands of governments. Get the Benchmarks.

Safer, Smarter AI Adoption Starts Here Help your team build shared AI fluency without adding complexity or risk. Get Details

AI in Government: What's Delivering Value; How Agencies Can Get Started Watch this webinar to hear real-world examples of how public-sector teams are applying agentic AI to streamline workflows, establish clear governance, and scale with accountability. WATCH NOW

Collaboration Tools that Protect the Public Conversation Explore how secure, integrated collaboration tools help communities respond faster to public safety incidents. WATCH NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Moving Beyond Training: Needed, a Unified Approach Cyber Risk Explore how a unified cybersecurity approach helps agencies understand where risk is building and respond sooner. WATCH NOW

The employer's failing to seek vacation or modification of an arbitration award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days period requires that the arbitration award be confirmed

When may a municipality be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff

Individual found guilty of stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds

Court orders terminated probationary employee's reinstatement after employer unable to show the dismissal was made in good faith

New York State Comptroller issues local government and school audits and budget reviews

Click on text highlighted in color to access audits issued

Audits

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

Employee terminated after being found guilty of having posted items that featured biased and discriminatory language and images on Facebook

Grouping students with disabilities for purposes of instruction

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the reports posted on the Internet.

What are finance teams ac ross government dealing with? Weigh in on the challenges and priorities defining public sector finance this year. Take the Survey