New York Public Personnel Law

Deceased employee estate denied representation and indemnification by the employer because the individual's actions were not undertaken as part of his regular duties

2026-04-06T09:00:00.031-04:00

In this CPLR Article 78 action Petitioners challenged the determination of the Orange County Executive that the Estate of a deceased Orange County, New York employee [Deceased] was not entitled to defense or indemnification by the County in an action pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The County Executive's found that the Decease's acts did not involve the performance of his "regular duties", a determination that was sustained by Supreme Court, Orange County. Petitioners then appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division said the issue of whether a county employee's act was "committed within the scope of his [or her] public employment and the discharge of his [or her] duties" is a factual question. In the words of the Court, "Orange County Local Law 3 provides that the determination as to whether a County employee was so acting and, thus is entitled to defense and indemnification, is to be made in the first instance by the County Executive."

The Appellate Division then noted that County Executive's "determination may be set aside only if it lacks a factual basis, and in that sense, is arbitrary and capricious".

In the instant action Appellate Division found that the County Executive's determination that the Deceased was not acting within the scope of his employment or duties with the Office of the Orange County District Attorney [OCDA] in connection with his conduct alleged in the federal action. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Estate was not entitled to be "defended and indemnified" by the County.

In particular, the Appellate Division said the County Executive "rationally based his determination on the allegations of the complaint in the federal action and in the underlying federal indictment demonstrating that [the Deceased's] actions in investigating and prosecuting ... were not undertaken as part of [the Deceased's] normal duties as an OCDA prosecutor but rather were undertaken in connection with an illegal bribery scheme carried out with his friend ... purely for personal purposes, and which was actively concealed from the OCDA".

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 3, 2026

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

CALL FOR ENTRIES for the AI 50 Awards 2026! The Center for Public Sector AI invites all US state, local, and tribal governments, education and nonprofit entities, as well as private industry partners, that are advancing artificial intelligence, to participate in the AI 50 Awards 2026. Submissions are due April 10, 2026. LEARN MORE

Introducing the City Manager Innovation Council Build trusted relationships with city leaders shaping priorities and investment decisions. Explore the Council

How AI-Powered Agents Streamline State and Local Service Delivery Explore how AI agents can help state and local governments handle routine tasks, streamline operations, and give staff more time for complex issues. DOWNLOAD

Modernizing and Funding Cybersecurity in the Age of AI This paper explores how state and local governments can modernize cybersecurity strategies to keep pace with rapidly evolving, AI-driven threats. DOWNLOAD

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

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

Navigating Dash Cams: A Guide for Union Engagement Navigating union concerns around dash cams? This guide shows public sector leaders how to build trust, address privacy head-on, and create fair policies that support both safety and morale. DOWNLOAD

The Workforce Tools Delivering ROI in State and Local Government 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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the following State Government Accountability audits

2026-04-03T09:00:00.002-04:00

Audits of the New York State Departments and Agencies listed below were posted on the Internet by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on April 2, 2026.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access these audits.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Managed Care Payments to Unenrolled Providers (Follow-Up) (2025-F-21)

The 21st Century Cures Act mandated that managed care in-network providers, with certain exceptions, enroll as participating providers in the state Medicaid program by January 1, 2018. Through the screening and provider enrollment process, the Department of Health (DOH) gains some assurance of providers’ validity to provide Medicaid services. A prior audit, issued in June 2024, found that DOH did not monitor encounter claims to identify inappropriate managed care payments to providers who were not enrolled in Medicaid and found weaknesses in controls that led to over $1.5 billion in improper and questionable payments. DOH officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s 10 audit recommendations, two were implemented, five were partially implemented, and three were not implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Recovering Managed Care Payments for Inpatient Services on Behalf of Recipients With Third-Party Health Insurance (Follow-Up) (2025-F-10)

The Department of Health (DOH) uses post-payment reviews to identify when a third-party health insurance (TPHI) carrier may be responsible for payments for services originally paid by Medicaid. The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) contracted with Health Management Systems, Inc. (a Gainwell Technologies company [Gainwell]), to perform these reviews and to pursue recoveries from TPHI carriers or providers. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, determined that DOH and OMIG lacked adequate oversight of the third-party liability recovery process. Gainwell had not billed TPHI carriers for the recovery of about $52.2 million in inpatient encounter claims that Medicaid managed care organizations paid as the primary insurance for recipients who, according to eMedNY (DOH’s Medicaid claims processing and payment system), had TPHI inpatient coverage. DOH and OMIG officials made minimal progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s eight audit recommendations, two were implemented, two were partially implemented, and four were not implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Medicaid Payments for Early Refills of Prescription Drugs and Supplies (2024-S-16)

Through NYRx, New York State Medicaid’s Pharmacy program, the Department of Health (DOH) pays pharmacies directly for medically necessary prescription drugs and supplies provided to Medicaid members. Early refills are refills on prescriptions before the previous supply has been fully used. For the period from April 2023 through October 2024, auditors identified over 3.6 million claims totaling approximately $585.2 million for drugs and supplies refilled too early. While many claims were filled just a few days earlier than allowed by policy, nearly 43% of the findings had 20 or more excess supply days. Auditors identified multiple weaknesses in DOH’s edit logic that allowed these claims to be paid despite meeting DOH’s criteria for denial.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Claims Processing Activity October 1, 2024 Through March 31, 2025 (2024-S-26)

During the 6-month period ended March 31, 2025, the Department of Health’s (DOH) claims processing system, eMedNY, processed over 328 million Medicaid claims, resulting in payments to providers of over $46 billion. Auditors identified over $13.8 million in improper Medicaid payments. As a result of the audit, more than $3.4 million of the improper payments was recovered. The audit also identified 14 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. In response to these findings, DOH removed 13 providers from the Medicaid program and was reviewing the ownership status of the remaining provider.

Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-18)

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in December 2023, found the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) did not adequately oversee the physical and financial conditions at the sampled developments. Management at those developments misspent funds and failed to provide a safe and clean living environment for the residents. Auditors identified issues with 164 transactions totaling $327,363 and, at two of five sampled developments, observed hazardous conditions such as water-damaged ceilings and rusty, loose railings. DHCR officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing one audit recommendation, partially implementing four, and not implementing two.

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in July 2024, found that Sunnyside Manor’s Board held a checking account separate from the development’s operating account, with a balance of $14,888 as of March 31, 2022. Bank statements for the Board-held account showed numerous questionable debit card transactions. This Board-held account was not included on Sunnyside Manor’s general ledger and audited financial statements and appears to have received limited oversight. Division of Housing and Community Renewal officials have made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented.

###

Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order annulling employer's decision to discontinue the services of a probationary employee rejected

2026-04-02T09:00:00.033-04:00

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to obtain a court order annulling the New York City Department of Education's [DOE] decision to discontinue Plaintiff's probationary employment, rejecting Plaintiff's argument that her termination was made in retaliation for her filing a complaint with Office of Equal Opportunity. Plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Courts decision.

The Appellate Division explained that Petitioner's challenge of the lower court's decision to discontinue her probationary employment was properly denied as Plaintiff failed to show that her termination before the completion of her maximum period of probation:

a. Was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose; or

b. Was in violation of law; or

c. Was made in bad faith.

The Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's argument that her termination was in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity was speculative, given the evidence of her misconduct, insubordination, and performance issues which had been discussed with her at meetings with administrative officials and her union representative which predated her filing of her Human Rights Law complaint. The Court held that that the record supports the conclusion that DOE's decision to terminate Plaintiff's probationary employment was due to Plaintiff's professional misconduct and insubordination.

Addressing Plaintiff's "motion to renew" presented to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court "providently denied the motion to renew" because Plaintiff did not present any new evidence that could not have been presented in [the Plaintiff's] petition or that would have rendered a different result".

The Appellate Division noted that "No appeal lies from that part of the Supreme Court's order which denied [Plaintiff's] motion to reargue."

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

Circumstantial evidence considered by the hearing officer in a Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary action

2026-04-01T09:00:00.030-04:00

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D.Turilli recommended termination of employment for a correction officer [Respondent] he found had engaged in undue familiarity by facilitating the transfer of contraband between detainees.

Citing OATH Index No. 1593/20 (Sept. 28, 2020), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 16, 2020), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2020-0810, in which the then presiding ALJ held that “A finding based entirely on circumstantial evidence may be established in a Civil Service disciplinary proceeding so long as the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that ‘the inference drawn is the only one that is fair and reasonable'”, in the instant disciplinary action Judge Turilli noted that there was circumstantial evidence of:

a. Respondent’s surreptitious retrieval and delivery of the items captured on video;

b. Respondent's concealment of his actions on official logbooks; and

c. An audio recording of conversations between the detainees involved.

The ALJ concluded that Respondent knew that the box and the envelope had come from a detainee in the restricted housing area and that Respondent knowingly transported the contraband to another housing area. In addition, Judge Turilli said that Respondent’s denial of knowledge was uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible.

Judge Turilli recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding that neither Respondent’s disciplinary history nor the lack of evidence regarding the contents of the box and envelope warranted a lesser penalty.

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

Discrete acts of a school board over a period of time alleged to constitute misconduct fail to establish a continuing wrong

2026-03-31T09:00:00.042-04:00

Observing that the "discrete acts of misconduct" described by Petitioner in her petition and which allegedly took place between January 2025 and September 2025, each of these acts having occurred more than 30 days prior to service of the Plaintiff's petition, the Commissioner of Education found that such acts, in the aggregate, did not constitute a continuing wrong.

The Commissioner explained that:

1. With respect to the challenged contracts, the Commissioner said it has been consistently held that the 30-day time limitation set for filing such appeals “commences upon the award[ing] of [a] contract”; and

2. It has been consistently held that events "like school elections and board meetings" also trigger unique and independent 30-day time limitations.

Accordingly, the Commissioner found that Petitioner’s claims were untimely and must be dismissed, indicating that "[in] light of this determination, [she] need not address the parties’ remaining contentions".

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

The United States Postal Service has changed its postmark dating system which may affect time sensitive mailings

2026-03-30T09:00:00.180-04:00

The United States Postal Service [USPS] modified its postmark system used to indicate when it "took possession" of the mail entrusted to it for delivery to the addressee effective December 24, 2025.

Postmarking at a local post offices is being discontinued in certain areas and a USPS machine-applied postmark system is being used to at USPS processing centers to indicate the date USPS took possession of mail for delivery to the addressee. As a result, the postmarks applied at a processing facility may be later than the date the mail piece was actually first received by the USPS at a local post office.

This discrepancy is expected to become more common due to the implementation of the USPS' "Regional Transportation Optimization" [RTO] initiative. The adoption of such a centralized service for affixing postmarks reporting the date when USPS "accepted" the mail piece may become of concern where the mail being sent to an addressee is subject to a statute of limitations or other time sensitive limitations for posting to the addressee in order to qualify as a valid timely posting.

To assure a postmark is applied on the same day a document is accepted by the USPS for processing, individuals may be required to use local USPS retail services that will require the USPS postal patron to present the mail piece at a USPS retail counter and request the postal clerk to place a local postmark "manually" on the item being mailed. As the postmark would be applied at the time of acceptance of the piece of mail by the postal clerk, the date of the postmark is evidence of the item being in the possession of the USPS for delivery of the item having been timely mailed.

In the alternative, USPS had indicated that:

a. When a customer pays for postage at a retail counter, the postage stamp would cancelled by postal clerk and indicate the date it was accepted by the UPSP or a PVI label would be used by the postal clerk to indicate that the mailed item was accepted by the USPS for delivery; or

b. If the postal patron uses Registered or Certified Mail, the receipt the patron receives for using such service will provide the date the item was accepted by USPS for mailing,

The date the item was posted is critical should it become necessary to demonstrated that certain mail such a tax return, a tax payment, a mail ballot or other "time sensitive" mailings was timely made should it become a legal issue.

As to New York case law addressing this type of situation, in McLaughlin v Saga Corporation, 242 AD2d 393, a case involving an appeal seeking workers' compensation benefits filed with the New York State Workers' Compensation Appeals Board [WCB], the Appellate Division initially took the position that an appeal is untimely if it is found to have been physically received by the appellate body after the statute of limitations had passed.

Initially the Appellate Division held that although the appeal was mailed within the 30-day period allowed for filing the application seeking Workers' Compensation benefits if the WCB physically receive the item at issue after the statute of limitations had passed it was untimely.

In Saga when claimant sought permission to appeal the Appellate Division's decision, the Court elected to reconsider its ruling. It then reversed its initial ruling, holding that it is the date the USPS accepted the mail for processing, rather than the date of receipt by the addressee, that controls in determining the timeliness of an administrative appeal.

In the words of the Court:

"Because [the date the appeal was due] fell upon a Saturday, however, the time limit was automatically extended to Monday, February 7, 1994 (see General Construction Law §25-a), the date upon which claimant's application for Board review was, in fact, mailed. This was sufficient to satisfy the time limitation of Workers' Compensation Law §23 despite the fact that the application for Board review was not actually filed with the Board until February 15, 1994."

The Appellate Division then explained it issued its revised ruling after concluding that if a party has a statutory right to make a decision, which may be then filed by mail, this period would necessarily be shortened if the appellate body could insist that it physically receive the mailed notice no later than the last day of the period of limitation.

The Court concluded that the method of service of a notice of appeal, by mail or by personal delivery, should not determine the time period available to the claimant to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.

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

Selected items from Internet blogs posted during the week ending March 27, 2026

2026-03-28T09:00:00.014-04:00

Veterans Benefits Webinar Disabled veteran attorney Benjamin Krause educates veterans nationwide. Veterans can register for his April webinar and access free resources at disabledveterans.org.

Introducing the City Manager Innovation Council Build trusted relationships with city leaders shaping priorities and investment decisions. Explore the Council

A Roadmap for Upgrading Resident Login and Access Modernizing how residents log in to government services doesn’t require a massive IT overhaul. This guide explains how state, provincial, and local agencies can introduce Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)—the systems that manage citizen registration, login, and multi-factor authentication—using a phased approach that works with existing platforms. DOWNLOAD

Why SD-WAN is the Future of Government Networking Government networks are under growing pressure as agencies adopt cloud services, deploy AI tools and deliver more digital services to residents. This paper explains why software-defined wide area networking (SD-WAN) is emerging as a critical foundation for modern government infrastructure, helping agencies increase capacity, strengthen security and reduce networking costs. 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

What It Takes to Rebuild After Wildfires Discover how small teams leverage technology to deliver faster, more resilient disaster recovery. LISTEN NOW

Former Fire Company Treasurer pleads guilty to stealing almost $75,000 from the Fire Company

2026-03-27T09:00:00.023-04:00

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Ontario County District Attorney Jason MacBride, and Ontario County Sheriff David Cirencione announced that Jill Havens, the former Treasurer of the Citizens Hose Company in Shortsville, pleaded guilty to felony theft of nearly $75,000 over a four-year period.

“Jill Havens not only exploited the trust of the members of the fire company who volunteer their time to protect their community, but her community which the company serves,” DiNapoli said. “She will now be held accountable for her crimes and the Company made whole. I thank District Attorney MacBride and Sheriff Cirencione for their partnerships in rooting out fraud.”

“Today marks an important step in moving forward for the Citizens Hose Company", Cirencione said. “I am pleased Ms. Havens has taken responsibility for her actions and made a significant payment toward her restitution which will help the fire service in Shortsville fund necessary programs and equipment as intended. My thanks to now retired Inv. Doug Smith who spent countless hours pouring over financial records and interviewing witnesses in order to make an arrest in this case. Comptroller DiNapoli and his staff were instrumental in assisting us throughout this investigation. District Attorney Jason MacBride has now held Ms. Havens accountable for this significant theft. We encourage anyone who suspects that fraudulent activity is occurring in any non-profit or service organization to report it.”

Members of the Citizens Hose Fire Company alerted the Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office when they suspected money was being stolen from the company. A joint investigation was then launched by DiNapoli’s Office, Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office.

Havens served as the fire company’s treasurer from 2018 through August 2022. As treasurer she had access to the company’s bank account and credit card. Investigators found she issued unauthorized checks and made personal purchases with fire company funds, then altered the company’s financial records to conceal her crime. She used the money to pay off her credit cards, make retail purchases, and to pay for online video games.

Haven’s predecessor at the hose company was convicted of grand larceny in 2019, after an investigation by DiNapoli found that she had embezzled over $24,000 in company funds. In 2020, the Comptroller issued an audit report recommending various measures to enhance internal controls at the company.

Havens pled guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in Ontario County Court, in front of Judge Gregory McCaffery. She paid $40,000 in restitution today with the remainder due at sentencing.

###

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

Failing to name all necessary parties to the litigation is fatal to petitioner's cause of action

2026-03-26T09:00:00.031-04:00

In this action Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking, among other things, a writ of mandamus compelling New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. [Corporation] to appoint Plaintiff to the position of Senior Stationary Engineer [SSE]. Plaintiff's petition, however, failed to name all necessary parties* involved and Supreme Court granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, without costs.

The Appellate Division, noting Petitioner had not shown that the administration of the SSE examination violated the merit and fitness clause of the New York State Constitution or that it was arbitrary, capricious, or violated due process, opined that Supreme Court had "providently granted" the Corporation's motion and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that Petitioner failed to join all the necessary parties.

Petitioner did not dispute the argument that the applicants who passed the SSE examination and were promoted to the position of SSE would be "inequitably affected by a judgment" in Petitioner's favor or contend that the examination's content or its administration was unconstitutional or in violation of law. However, Petitioner only named one applicant for the SSE position in his petition and, in the words of the Appellate Division, "did not identify any of [the] other necessary parties to this proceeding, rendering it impossible to bring the parties before the court."

* A necessary party is a party whose interests could be adversely affected by the outcome of the relevant litigation.

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

Termination of a probationary employee during the individual's probationary period

2026-03-25T09:00:00.267-04:00

The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) terminated an employee from her non-competitive class position without notice and hearing. DOC subsequently reinstated the employee but rejected her request for backpay, whereupon the employee sued DOC for the back pay she claimed was due her.

Although the parties disputed whether Petitioner had completed her probationary period by the date of her discharge, the Appellate Division said it need not resolve that dispute because, even if Petitioner had completed her probationary period, she would not have been entitled to a pretermination hearing under the Civil Service Law, which affords tenure protections to employees serving in non-competitive class titles only once they have completed at least five years of continuous service.

Citing Civil Service Law §77, the Appellate Division held that "Because petitioner was not discharged in violation of the Civil Service Law, there is no basis to order her reinstated with backpay."

With respect to termination of a probationary employee prior end of his or her maximum period of probation in York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rules 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”.

As a general rule, a "permanent" appointment to a position in the classified service takes effect on the date of the individual's appointment subject to the individual's successful completion of their required probationary but the individual does not attain tenure in the position until:

[a] he or she satisfactorily completes his or her maximum period of probation or

[b] the appointing authority lawfully truncated the individual's maximum period of probation or

[c] the individual is found to have attained tenure by estoppel.

Further, in the event a probationer is absent due to “ordered military service,” his or her military service is to be credited “as satisfactory service” for the purpose of completing his or her probationary period if he or she is honorably discharged or released from active duty*. This means that an individual may satisfy his or her probationary period requirements while on serving ordered military duty.

If the individual is appointed or promoted to a position while on military duty, his or her military service is also to be counted as “satisfactory service” for the purposes of probation upon honorable discharge or release from active duty.

* See §§242 and 243 of the New York State Military Law.

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

Mission Accomplished Transition Services to present The Power of Mentorship featuring Coach Carmen and others.

2026-03-24T09:05:00.000-04:00

Special Assistant for Intergovernmental & Community Affairs at the NYS Department of Public Service, Ezra P. Scott Jr, is hosting the next Albany Professionals Under 40 and Friends' [APF 40] networking event which will focus on the importance of mentorship. The meeting will be held on:

Friday, March 27, 2026, 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

at a new location

The Country Inn & Suites by Radisson

300 Broadway,

Albany, N.Y. 12207.

Please note that “And Friends” means the space is open to both those under 40 and those 40 and over, so feel free to invite others in your network.

Feel free to share this announcement with those in your circle.

RSVP: https://www.tickettailor.com/events/albanyprofessionalsunder40/2071900

Looking forward to seeing you there!

Evaluating a discrimination or hostile work environment claim

2026-03-24T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court, granted the Employer's motions to dismiss certain causes of advanced in Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, without costs, denied the Defendant's motions at issue and reinstated those causes of action.

The Appellate Division noted the Supreme Court had correctly observed that employment discrimination cases are generally reviewed under notice pleading standards and that a "plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds".

Citing Petit v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 177 AD3d 402, the Appellate Division explained that "In an action brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), "[f]air notice is all that is required to survive at the pleading stage" and noted that NYSHRL was amended in 2019 to "put in place a more lenient standard of liability that has been likened to that of the NYCHRL".

In the words of the Appellate Division: "Although a 'single, isolated comment' or 'stray remark' will not always suffice to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim ... 'a single comment that objectifies women being made in circumstances where that comment would, for example, signal views about the role of women in the workplace' could be actionable ... Here, where [Petitioner] alleged that her supervisor implied that she only received high evaluation scores because she was engaging in sexual relations with higher-ups, the alleged remarks and attendant hostile conduct were more than 'petty slights and trivial inconveniences'".

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

SUNY Research Webinar highlighting the women who shaped New York State’s past and continue to inspire its future

2026-03-23T15:00:00.000-04:00

Join the SUNY Research Foundation Webinar on Wednesday, March 25, 2026 highlighting the women who shaped New York State’s past and continue to inspire its future. Hear from the Radley Fellows as they share their groundbreaking research.

This event honors the vision of Dr. Virginia Radley, whose fellowship uplifts SUNY scholars exploring women’s leadership, the humanities, and inclusive civic impact.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases 2025 fiscal scores for certain New York State Villages and some New York State Cities

2026-03-23T09:00:00.000-04:00

On March 21, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that seven villages were designated in fiscal stress under his office’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System (FSMS) for their fiscal year ending in 2025. DiNapoli’s office evaluated all non-calendar fiscal year local governments that filed their annual financial reports (AFR) in time to be scored. One village was designated in “significant fiscal stress,” four in “moderate fiscal stress,” and two as “susceptible to fiscal stress.”

The Village of Island Park (Nassau County) was classified in “significant fiscal stress.” The four villages designated in “moderate fiscal stress” were: Alexander (Genesee County), Coxsackie (Greene), Liberty (Sullivan) and Tivoli (Dutchess). The two villages classified as “susceptible to fiscal stress” were: Homer (Cortland) and Huntington Bay (Suffolk).

“The number of local governments with a fiscal stress designation remains low, but many cannot be evaluated because they do not file their required annual financial reports in time to be scored,” DiNapoli said. “A gap in filing is in itself a risk and creates a missed opportunity to identify fiscal stress and take corrective action before more drastic steps are needed. With uncertainty coming out of Washington having the potential to affect state and local funding and the economy, officials must closely monitor their financial condition to be able to adjust to changes that may lie ahead. I encourage local governments to use our self-assessment tool to help them budget and avoid pitfalls.”

The latest round of fiscal scores are for local governments with fiscal years ending between Feb. 28 and July 31, 2025, including 518 villages, most of which have a fiscal year ending on May 31. The scores, which are based on self-reported data, also cover 17 cities with non-calendar fiscal years, including the “Big 4” cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, each of which have fiscal years ending on June 30.

Local governments are statutorily required to file an AFR with DiNapoli’s office following the close of their fiscal year. In total, 101, or almost 20% of local governments did not file their AFR in time to receive a FSMS score, a date that is at least three months past their statutory filing deadline. Over 386,000 New Yorkers reside in these municipalities.

Notably, three villages did not file in time to receive a score for 2025 and were in stress in fiscal year 2024: Saugerties (Ulster), Washingtonville (Orange) and Kaser (Rockland). The number of non-filers with non-calendar fiscal years has doubled since 2014.

DiNapoli’s office continues an outreach campaign to remind local officials of the statutory filing deadlines and provide assistance as needed and recently launched an online resource that highlights the importance of the AFR and tracks non-filers. It includes a tool for the public to check the filing status of any local government.

FSMS, which DiNapoli launched in 2012, assesses levels of fiscal stress in local governments using financial indicators including year-end fund balance, cash position, short-term cash-flow borrowing and patterns of operating deficits. It generates overall fiscal stress scores, which ultimately determine designations. The system also separately analyzes environmental indicators to provide insight about local economies and other challenges that may affect a local government’s or school district’s finances. This information includes population trends, poverty and unemployment.

DiNapoli’s office provides a self-assessment tool that allows local officials to calculate fiscal stress scores based on current and future financial assumptions. Officials can use this tool to assist in budget planning, which is especially helpful during periods of revenue and expenditure fluctuations.

In January, DiNapoli released fiscal stress scores for school districts. In September, his office will release scores for municipalities with a calendar-year fiscal year, which includes counties, towns, most cities and a few villages.

List of Villages and Cities in Fiscal Stress
Municipalities in Fiscal Stress

List of Villages and Cities that Failed to File Financial Information
Municipalities that Failed to File or Inconclusive List

Complete List of Fiscal Stress Scores
Data Files

FSMS Search Tool
Tool

AFR Non-Filers
Webpage Tracker Tool

Selected items from blogs posted on the Internet during the week ending March 20, 2026

2026-03-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

CALL FOR ENTRIES for the AI 50 Awards 2026! The Center for Public Sector AI invites all US state, local, and tribal governments, education and nonprofit entities, as well as private industry partners, that are advancing artificial intelligence, to participate in the AI 50 Awards 2026. Submissions are due April 10. LEARN MORE

4 Ways Government Organizations Are Driving Efficiency Government and education organizations are under growing pressure to do more with fewer resources. This thought leadership white paper explores four proven ways SLED organizations are driving efficiency through modernization, from process mapping and AI-powered automation to cloud adoption and improved constituent experiences. DOWNLOAD

5 Steps for Adopting AI Responsibly in Government Government agencies must modernize services while safeguarding transparency, security and public trust. AI can help — but only with disciplined implementation. This paper shares five concrete steps for adopting AI responsibly, from prioritizing use cases to establishing governance and preparing your workforce. DOWNLOAD

9 Best Practices for Modernizing Hybrid Government Workspaces Discover nine proven tactics government agencies are using to build more efficient and flexible work environments. DOWNLOAD

Future-Proof Your Workforce with Cross-Skilling This paper examines how cross-skilling can help government organizations build a more agile and resilient workforce. 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

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

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

Building and Evaluating an RFP for Digital Grants Software This guide gives public sector professionals the clarity they need to craft and evaluate a digital grants software RFP. Learn how to set expectations, streamline responses, and select a solution that fits your mission and your budget. DOWNLOAD

The 2026 State of Online Payments This sixth annual report delivers essential insights into how, when, and why Americans are paying their bills digitally. DOWNLOAD

Reconnecting Communities After Disasters Takes Coordination When the worst happens, restoring connectivity takes coordination. America's cable industry brings teamwork, readiness, and experience to disaster recovery. Watch the new docufilm

Managing the Risks of Shadow AI Explore how public sector leaders can strike the right balance between enabling innovation and protecting sensitive data. This paper outlines why visibility is the foundation of effective AI governance, how adaptive Zero Trust security models can reduce risk in real time, and what practical steps agencies can take to establish guardrails without slowing productivity. DOWNLOAD

A Platform Approach to Smarter Device Fleet Management Managing today’s device fleets is only growing more complex. In this session, we’ll explore what it truly means to manage your device fleet strategically and why a platform-based approach is critical for modern government and education environments. 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

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

Secure Collaboration for Modern Government Learn how organizations are leveraging certified, secure video and communication solutions to support productivity and public engagement. WATCH NOW

Exposing Software Supply Chain Blind Spots in Government Learn how to make invisible risks to the software supply chain visible, and what government leaders can do about them. WATCH NOW

SUNY Research Webinar highlighting the women who shaped New York State’s past and continue to inspire its future

2026-03-20T10:30:00.000-04:00

This event honors the vision of Dr. Virginia Radley, whose fellowship uplifts SUNY scholars exploring women’s leadership, the humanities, and inclusive civic impact.

New York State Comptroller releases local government audits

2026-03-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

On March 19, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the local government audits described below.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the text of the audits.

Village of Asharoken – Claims Audit and Treasurer’s Duties (Suffolk County) Auditors found the board did not always conduct a thorough audit of individual claims for non-payroll disbursements because supporting documentation was not consistently included with claims submitted for review. Of the 232 disbursements totaling $877,625 reviewed, 51 disbursements totaling $69,707 were not properly audited due to missing invoices, unsigned vouchers, late fees and claims that showed no evidence of board review. Auditors also found that some payments were withdrawn directly from the village’s bank account without being audited by the board.

Town of Gorham – Distribution of Foreign Fire Insurance Tax Proceeds (Ontario County) Town officials did not properly distribute the 2023 and 2024 Foreign Fire Insurance tax proceeds in accordance with state law and relevant case law. The bookkeeper incorrectly calculated the allocation by using an inaccurate formula that included the fire district and based the distribution on contract payments and budgeted appropriations rather than the number of active members in the fire companies. Auditors determined that the fire district should not have been included in the calculation and that the proceeds should have been distributed based on a pro-rata formula using active membership totals. As a result, one fire department received $681 more than its share, another received $4,076 less than its share and the fire district improperly received $3,395. In addition, town officials did not review the allocation calculations to ensure the funds were accurately distributed.

Fairview Fire District – Procurement and Claims Audit (Dutchess County) The board and district officials did not always procure goods and services in a cost-effective manner or ensure claims were properly audited for accuracy and completeness. As a result, officials could not support the district procuring a $1.2 million ladder truck in the most cost-effective manner and did not pursue competition or document the competitive process for 11 purchases totaling $178,347 out of 18 purchases totaling $414,458. In addition, officials did not effectively audit 50 claims totaling $124,600, made 15 purchases totaling $5,784 that were not appropriate because they were gifts and did not approve reimbursement payments to 27 employees totaling $19,419.

Preston Fire District – Board Oversight (Chenango County) The board did not provide proper oversight of the district’s financial activities. The board did not adopt an investment policy, correctly monitor investments, establish a procurement policy, effectively audit claims, annually audit the treasurer’s records or ensure the district’s annual financial reports were filed in a timely manner. Although the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid, officials maintained the capital reserve fund in a savings account earning 0.02% interest and realized only $125 in earnings during the three completed fiscal years of the audit period. If officials invested in an alternative permissible investment, such as treasury bills with an average interest rate of 3.89%, the district could have realized approximately $26,000 in additional earnings during the same period.

Town of Ridgeway – Health Insurance Benefits (Orleans County) Auditors found the board did not properly authorize or monitor health insurance benefits provided to current and former officials. Because internal controls and oversight were not established, the supervisor did not ensure officials were eligible to receive post-employment health insurance benefits or that required premium contributions were paid to the town. As a result, the town incurred $236,885 more for health insurance premiums than it should have during the audit period, representing approximately 34% of the town’s total health insurance premiums over the seven-year period. In addition, the supervisor did not ensure certain former officials were eligible for benefits, resulting in $179,325 in unauthorized payments, and did not collect $52,659 in required premium contributions owed to the town.

Middlesex Fire District – Procurement (Yates County) District officials did not ensure that goods and services were procured in an economical manner. These deficiencies occurred because officials did not follow the procurement policy adopted by the board of fire commissioners or demonstrate that the emergency exception to competitive bidding applied when purchasing a new tanker truck. As a result, officials did not competitively bid and awarded a contract valued at $564,065 to purchase the tanker truck. In addition, officials did not seek competition by obtaining verbal or written quotes for 14 purchases totaling $82,727, which reduced assurance that purchases were made in the most prudent and economical manner and in the district’s best interest.

Middlesex Fire District – Fiscal Transparency (Yates County) The treasurer prepared and provided monthly and annual financial reports to the board. However, the treasurer did not prepare and file the district’s annual financial reports with the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) in a timely manner for fiscal years 2018 through 2024. The treasurer indicated that the former treasurer’s records were disorganized and incomplete and that she did not initially have access to the OSC’s online portal to file the reports.

Town of Marathon – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Cortland County) The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the 2023 and 2024 annual financial reports with OSC and did not provide the board with complete monthly financial reports. The supervisor also did not properly maintain accounting records, record the dates cash receipts were collected or properly reconcile bank accounts and cash records.

Town of Coventry – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Chenango County) The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the town’s annual financial reports for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 with OSC and did not provide the board with sufficient financial information to monitor the town’s fiscal activities. Auditors also found that the supervisor did not ensure debit card purchases were approved by the board, review payroll reports or provide the board with monthly budget status reports.

###

An appeal to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law §310 is appellate in nature and is not ripe for review by the Commissioner until the decision is final

2026-03-19T09:00:00.000-04:00

Petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310 with New York State's Commissioner of Education concerning an action of the Board of Education of a school district [Respondent] involving its filling an administrative position [Coordinator Position] for which the Petitioner had earlier applied and had been interviewed.

In the instant appeal Petitioner alleged Respondent "declined to hire him for the vacant Coordinator Position in retaliation for, among other things, multiple lawsuits he commenced against a member of Respondent’s hiring committee. In addition, Petitioner alleged that Respondent had violated certain provisions of New York State's Constitution, certain provisions of New York State's Civil Service Law, and board policy.

Respondent had posted a job announcement for the Coordinator Position and subsequently reposted the job announcement in which it stated that "previous applicants need not reapply" but was otherwise identical to the previous posting.

Citing Appeal of Frey, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,308, and other decisions of the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner said Petitioner's appeal "must be dismissed as premature as the Commissioner will not render an advisory opinion on an issue before it becomes justiciable".

The Commissioner explained the Commissioner’s jurisdiction under color of Education Law §310 is appellate in nature and an action is not ripe for review by the Commissioner until it is final and results in an actual, concrete injury.

Noting that Respondent’s Policy 9240 requires that an interview committee recommend three or more candidates for second round interviews for administrative positions such as the Coordinator Position and Respondent had reposted the Coordinator Position:

1. In an effort to obtain the requisite number of candidates;

2. At the time Petitioner's appeal was filled Respondent indicated that “none of the candidates … interviewed at the first-level were rejected; and

3. Petitioner had not submitted a reply or otherwise contested these assertions by the Respondent;

the Commissioner found that Petitioner's appeal must be dismissed as premature.

The Commissioner also observed that to the extent Petitioner suggests that Respondent was required to conduct "a competitive examination of merit and fitness" to fill the Coordinator Position, such examinations are not required for positions such as the Coordinator Position as the duties of the positions involve “the function of administration of teaching” and dismissed Petitioner's appeal.

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

Challenging a New York State statute alleged to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad

2026-03-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

Executive Law §70-b established the Office of Special Investigation [OSI] within Office of the Attorney General [Respondent] to "investigate and, if warranted, prosecute" any alleged offense by a peace officer or police officer, "whether or not formally on duty", concerning any incident in which the death of a person, "whether in custody or not, is caused by an act or omission of such police officer or peace officer or in which the attorney general determines there is a question as to whether the death was in fact caused by an act or omission of such police officer or peace officer".

An off-duty state trooper was driving his private vehicle when another vehicle crossed over the center line of a highway and struck the trooper's vehicle head on. The trooper and a passenger were seriously injured and the driver of the other vehicle died. This triggered an investigation by OSI* pursuant to Executive Law §70-b.

The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. [PBA], contending that Executive Law "§70-b was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad", brought an action challenging the statute.

Supreme Court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss PBA's complaint "for lack of standing" and PBA appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. In the course of the appeal Respondent conceded that PBA had standing to bring the action and asked the Appellate Division to address the merits of PBA's allegations. The Appellate Division declined Respondent's request and remitted the case to Supreme Court to allow Respondent to serve an answer to PBA's complaint.

Following remittal and service of Respondent's answer, Supreme Court granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted, among other things, a declaratory judgment in Respondent's favor, holding that Executive Law §70-b is not void for vagueness and overbreadth. PBA appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

Addressing PBA's contention that Executive Law §70-b is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Appellate Division, citing White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209, said "It is well settled that legislative enactments are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality, and courts strike them down only as a last unavoidable result after every reasonable mode of reconciliation of the statute with the Constitution has been resorted to, and reconciliation has been found impossible". The Court then noted that "To rebut that presumption, the party attempting to strike down a statute as facially unconstitutional bears the heavy burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is in conflict with the Constitution", explaining that "A statute, or a regulation, is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, and it is written in a manner that permits or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement".

Concluding that PBA "has not met its heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutionally void on its face", the Appellate Division opined that PBA's conclusory assertion that Executive Law §70-b is constitutionally overbroad lacks merit as it does not infringe on any constitutionally protected conduct.

* In a footnote to its decision in the instant matter the Appellate Division observed that after an initial investigation OSI found that the underlying incident involving the death of the driver was not under the jurisdiction of Respondent's office because the death of the driver of the other vehicle was not caused by a police officer.

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

Appellate Division rejects claim that adding age to New York State's Equal Rights Amendment nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for New York State judges and justices

2026-03-17T09:00:00.023-04:00

In November 2024, New York State voters in the general election approved the Equal Rights Amendment [ERA], which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set out in Article I, §11(a) of the State Constitution.

Petitioners in this action are three current or former New York State court justices who turned 70 or 76 years of age in 2025 and are therefore subject to mandatory retirement or to the "certification process" in order to continue to serve as New York State court justices.

The Petitioners contended that the amendment to New York State's ERA nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for New York State court judges and justices when it added "age" to the list of protected categories set forth in Article I, §11(a) of the State Constitution.

The Appellate Division disagreed, opining that "The plain language of the ERA does not support [Petitioners'] contention that article VI, §25(b), the mandatory judicial retirement provision, has been implicitly repealed, as the ERA contains no reference to Article VI, the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age".

Rejecting the Petitioners' reliance on the "well-established exception . . . that a subsequent general statute will repeal a prior special law relating to the same subject where inconsistency exists and the Legislature's intent to effect such a repeal is manifest" [emphasis in the decision], the Appellate Division set out two reasons for rejecting Petitioners' arguments:

1. "... in contrast to the examples cited by petitioners, the ERA addresses a different subject matter from the provision petitioners seek to have declared nullified; and

2. "[Petitioners] cannot show that the legislature or the voters intended for the ERA to repeal article VI, §25(b)".

The Appellate Division noted that almost immediately after the ERA's changes became effective on January 1, 2025, new legislation proposing amendments that would raise the Article VI, §25(b) judicial retirement age was introduced in January 2025 and April 2025 in New York State's Assembly and Senate respectively, "suggesting that the drafters of the ERA did not, in fact, contemplate raising the judicial retirement age, but rather intended to address that issue separately."

In addition, citing Alweis v Evans, 69 NY2d 199, the Appellate Division pointed out "[r]epeal by implication is distinctly not favored in the law", observing that implicit repeal requires that the repugnancy between two laws "be so palpable that upon reading the two acts together it is obvious, without the aid of elaborate argument, that both could not have been intended to remain in force at the same time".

The text of the Appellate Division's ruling is set out below:

Matter of Miller v State of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 01409

Decided on March 12, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 12, 2026
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.

Index No. 163102/25|Appeal No. 6084|Case No. 2025-07659|

[*1]In the Matter of Robert J. Miller et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

The State of New York et al., Respondents/Defendants-Respondents, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation. Amicus Curiae.

Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Y. David Scharf of counsel), for appellants.

David Nocenti, Office of Court Administration, New York (Pedro Morales of counsel), for New York Office of Court Administration, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Ester Murdukhayeva of counsel), for State of New York, respondent.

New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York (Jessica Perry of counsel), amicus curiae.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered December 1, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross-motion of respondent The State of New York to dismiss the petition-complaint seeking a judgment declaring that the 2024 amendment to article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution rendered null and void the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices of the New York State Courts set forth in article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution and that the application of Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 violates article I, § 11 of the State Constitution, and seeking an injunction barring respondents from requiring petitioners to retire or be denied certification for service, and dismissed this hybrid proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR articles 30, 63, and 78, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant judgment to respondents to the extent of declaring that article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution has not been repealed and that Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 are not unconstitutional, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In November 2024, New York State voters in the general election approved the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set forth in article I, § 11(a) of the State Constitution. Petitioners are three current or former state court justices who turned 70 or 76 years old in 2025 and are therefore subject to mandatory retirement or the certification process. They commenced the instant proceeding contending that the ERA nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges and justices when it added "age" to the list of protected categories set forth in article I, § 11(a). We disagree.

The guiding principle in the interpretation of a written constitution is to give effect to the plain language of the document (Matter of King v Cuomo, 81 NY2d 247, 253 [1993]). It has long been settled that "an amended constitution must be read as a whole, and as if every part had been adopted at the same time and as one law, and effect must be given to every part of it, each clause explained and qualified by every other part" (People ex rel. Killeen v Angle, 109 NY 564, 575 [1888] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, courts are obliged to reconcile "seemingly conflicting provisions of the Constitution without doing violence to either" (McMahon v Michaelian, 38 AD2d 60, 62 [1st Dept 1971], affd 30 NY2d 507 [1972]; see Matter of Burger King v State Tax Commn., 51 NY2d 614, 620-621 [1980]).

The plain language of the ERA does not support petitioners' contention that article VI, § 25(b), the mandatory judicial retirement provision, has been implicitly repealed, as the ERA contains no reference to article VI, the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age (see NY Const art I, § 11[a]; see also Matter of King, 81 NY2d at 253). For two reasons, we reject petitioners' reliance on the "well-established exception . . . that a subsequent general statute will repeal a prior special law relating to the same subject where inconsistency exists and the Legislature's intent to effect such a repeal is manifest" (Gerry v Volger, 252 AD 217, 219 [4th Dept 1937] [emphasis added]).

First, in contrast to the examples cited by petitioners, the ERA addresses a different subject matter from the provision petitioners seek to have declared nullified (see Gerry, 252 AD at 218 [statutory change to statewide jury duty qualification implicitly amended statute regarding jury duty in specific counties]; see also US Const 14th amend, § 2 [changing calculation for apportioning representatives from prior method found in article I, former § 2, clause 3]; US Const 17th amend [changing method of selecting United States Senators found in article I, former § 3, clause 1]; Moore v United States, 602 US 572, 582-583 [2024], quoting US Const 16th amend [noting repeal of limitation that taxation of income from real property be evenly apportioned among the states by article I, former § 2, clause 3 and article I, § 8]).

Second, petitioners cannot show that the legislature or the voters intended for the ERA to repeal article VI, § 25(b). On the contrary, almost immediately after the ERA's changes became effective on January 1, 2025, new legislation seeking to propose amendments that would raise the article VI, § 25(b) judicial retirement age was introduced in January 2025 and April 2025 in the Assembly and Senate, respectively, suggesting that the drafters of the ERA did not, in fact, contemplate raising the judicial retirement age, but rather intended to address that issue separately (see Assembly Bills A 3756, A 3757 [2025]; Senate Bill S 7455 [2025]). Similarly, a proposed amendment with this same provision failed in the 2013 general election. The sponsors of the ERA bill focused instead on enshrining comprehensive protections from discrimination given the changing national legal landscape endangering abortion rights, rights for the disabled and pregnant, and rights based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

In addition, "[r]epeal by implication is distinctly not favored in the law" (Alweis v Evans, 69 NY2d 199, 204 [1987]). Implicit repeal requires that the repugnancy between two laws "be so palpable that upon reading the two acts together it is obvious, without the aid of elaborate argument, that both could not have been intended to remain in force at the same time" (Pines v State of New York, 115 AD3d 80, 98 [2d Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 23 NY3d 982 [2014], quoting Matter of Tiffany, 179 NY 455, 457 [1904]). Because there is no support for petitioners' position within the ERA's legislative history, their cause of action asserting an implicit repeal necessarily fails. It follows that petitioners cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115, which implement article VI, § 25(b) faithfully, are unconstitutional (Matter of McGee v Korman, 70 NY2d 225, 231 [1987]; see Stefanik v Hochul, 43 NY3d 49, 57 [2024]).

We decline to reach the issues of whether the ERA made the Civil Rights Clause of article I, § 11 self-executing, or whether strict scrutiny applies to age-based statutory classifications, as these issues are academic in light of our determination.

Finally, Supreme Court erred in dismissing petitioners' first three causes of action seeking declaratory relief upon a finding that they were not entitled to the declaration sought. Instead, the proper course was to issue a declaration in respondents' favor (Gourin v 72A Realty Assoc., L.P., 226 AD3d 475, 477 [1st Dept 2024]).

We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 12, 2026

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against his union employer "for reasons other than those stated by the motion court"

2026-03-16T09:00:00.024-04:00

The Plaintiff in this action alleged that:

1. Plaintiff was a member of DC 37's professional employees' union, the Federation of Field Representatives [FFR], "which has a [collective bargaining agreement] with . . . DC 37";

2. Said CBA provides that "[s]everance pay shall be paid to an employee . . . who is discharged;"

3. That employees hired after 2005 "accrue severance pay of one week's pay for every 12 months of service"; and

4. DC 37 "terminated [Plaintiff] without explanation and refused to pay him any severance pay."

The Martin Rule is cited in this decision by the Appellate Division, wherein the Court notes that Plaintiff's contract and quasi-contract claims against his union employer did not fall within the "narrow exception to the Martin rule" for "suit[s] by a union member against a union arising from wrongful expulsion".

The Appellate Division then affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's contract and quasi-contract claims against DC 37, but "for reasons other than those stated by the motion court".

The text of Appellate Division's decision in the instant action is set out below:

Alvarado v Local 1549 N.Y.C.

2026 NY Slip Op 00969

Decided on February 19, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 19, 2026
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Scarpulla, Friedman, Chan, Hagler, JJ.

Index No. 155407/24|Appeal No. 5896|Case No. 2025-02827|

[*1]Oscar Alvarado, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Local 1549 — N.Y.C. Clerical Administrative Employees, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Ballon Stoll P.C., New York (Marshall B. Bellovin of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York (Melissa S. Woods of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2025, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for unpaid wages, plaintiff alleges that he was "hired by Local 1549 under the purview of [defendant DC 37] and AFSCME as a Coordinator of Strategic Planning and Special Projects," and that "[d]efendants terminated [p]laintiff without explanation and refused to pay him any severance pay."

Plaintiff alleges that he was a member of DC 37's professional employees' union, the Federation of Field Representatives (FFR), "which has a [CBA] with . . . DC 37." The CBA provides that "[s]everance pay shall be paid to an employee . . .who is discharged," and that employees hired after 2005 "accrue severance pay of one week's pay for every 12 months of service." Plaintiff further alleges that the DC 37 Employee Manual similarly states that "[s]everance pay shall be paid to employees who are discharged" and "shall amount to one week's pay for each full year of service." Plaintiff specifically alleges that his "employment relationship" with defendants "was governed by [the] Employee Manual with DC 37 and a Union Contract [i.e., the CBA] between DC 37, AFSCME, and [FFR]." In his complaint plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of New York Labor Law § 198-c, breach of contract, implied contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit.

Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 198-c was properly dismissed because that specific provision of the Labor Law does not create a private right of action (see e.g. Stoganovic v Dinolfo, 92 AD2d 729, 729 [4th Dept 1983], affd 61 NY2d 812 [1984]). In any event, the claim pursuant to § 198-c is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (see Gilbert v Burlington Indus., Inc., 765 F2d 320, 327-328 [2d Cir 1985]).

We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's contract and quasi-contract claims "for reasons other than those stated by the motion court" (J. Remora Maintenance LLC v Efromovich, 103 AD3d 501, 501 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 862 [2013]). While the court did not reach defendants' argument based on the unions' status as unincorporated associations, we affirm on that ground. Plaintiff was required to, but did not, plead "that the entire membership authorized and later ratified [defendants'] actions" (Dowlah v Am. Arbitration Assn., 221 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 910 [2024]), as required by Martin v Curran (303 NY 276, 280 [1951]; see Palladino v CNY Centro, Inc., 23 NY3d 140, 146 [2014]). Plaintiff's contract and quasi-contract claims against his union employer do not fall within the "narrow exception to the Martin rule" for "suit[s] by a union member against a union arising from wrongful expulsion" (id. at 147-148).

We have considered plaintiff's additional arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 19, 2026

Selected posts from blogs during the week ending March 13, 2026

2026-03-14T09:00:00.005-04:00

Building Government Visibility and Resilience with Autonomous Tech Explore how autonomous technologies strengthen operations, resilience and situational awareness across government. READ NOW

Real change Real leaders No script Inside City Hall is a new series from Via featuring candid discussions with the municipal leaders behind high performing transit. Watch now

Rebuilding from Disaster: How Los Angeles County Assessed Damage from the 2025 Wildfires Hear how Los Angeles County leveraged a unified, modern IT system to quickly and accurately assess damage to thousands of properties. 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

Make the Most of Your Cybersecurity Funding: Turning Grants into Measurable Risk Reduction Learn how to find and maximize cybersecurity grants to fund your tech stack. WATCH NOW

Exposing Software Supply Chain Blind Spots in Government Learn how to make invisible risks to the software supply chain visible, and what government leaders can do about them. WATCH NOW

Secure Collaboration for Modern Government: Enabling Productivity and Compliance Learn how organizations are leveraging certified, secure video and communication solutions to support productivity & public engagement. WATCH NOW

Moving Beyond Training: Why Governments Need a Unified Approach to Human Cyber Risk This webinar explores how a unified approach—connecting training, behavior data, and real-time signals—helps agencies understand where risk is building and respond sooner. WATCH NOW

A CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner

2026-03-13T09:00:00.180-04:00

An employee [Petitioner] of the New York City Department of Correction [DOC] was served with disciplinary charges, which disciplinary charges were sustained by a DOC human resources representative. Subsequently Petitioner executed a waiver of his right to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

Petitioner then commenced the instant to CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order compelling DOC to submit his disciplinary case to the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] for adjudication pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motions and denied DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action. DOC appealed the Supreme Court's determinations.

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's order and judgment, on the law, with costs, granted DOC's petition and dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding.

Citing Matter of Kaneev v City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 149 AD3d 742, the Appellate Division explained that a proceeding initiated pursuant to CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner.

In the instant matter the Appellate Division noted that Petitioner executed the waiver on February 11, 2021, and DOC's labor relations representative upheld the disciplinary charges against the Petitioner on August 4, 2021. Since Petitioner did not commence the instant proceeding until September 1, 2022, the Appellate Division held that Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding was time-barre, citing CPLR 217(1).

In the words of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "should have granted DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action on the ground that the proceeding was time-barred" and that "The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of the foregoing".

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

Employee's making misleading entries into agency records and other acts of insubordination results in disciplinary action

2026-03-12T09:00:00.019-04:00

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings' Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 22-day suspension without pay as the penalty to be imposed on an agency employee [Respondent] charged with, and found guilty of, insubordination and making a false, deceptive, and misleading entry into an agency record.

After being directed not to do so, Respondent worked on and sent emails concerning matters not assigned to her and copied the agency's Commissioner and the agency's Deputy Commissioner on routine work emails. Respondent also submitted a request to the agency's Office of Information Technology [OIT] service desk for assistance on behalf of the Commissioner without the Commissioner's knowledge or approval in an effort to restore Respondent's access to an agency database.

The ALJ found that Respondent willfully disobeyed Respondent's supervisor’s clear and unambiguous instructions that Respondent:

[1] not send emails regarding issues not assigned to her, and, in addition,

[2] not to send emails addressed to individuals outside Respondent's chain of command.

Judge Gloade also found that Respondent made a false entry in agency records when she submitted an OIT ticket "on the Commissioner’s behalf" without authorization and misrepresented that she sent the request on the Commissioner’s behalf.

The ALJ recommended Respondent be suspended for 22 days without pay, noting the recommended penalty was coupled with a 15-day prehearing suspension that Respondent had already served.

Click HERE to access Judge Gloade's findings and recommended penalty posted on the Internet.