New York Public Personnel Law

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending July 24, 2026

2026-07-25T08:00:00.000-04:00

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul issued an executive order pausing new hyperscale data center construction This will provide New York State with an opportunity to better determine how these massive facilities could impact New York State's electric grid, clean water, utility bills, and its local communities.

The State of AI in Government: Research, Reality and the Road Ahead [A Webinar] Learn how government organizations are approaching AI adoption, governance, and long-term success. Register

Deferred Maintenance and Its Impact on Communities This eBook examines the problem of deferred maintenance for America's infrastructure, considers ways to identify deferred maintenance issues early and explores options for addressing them quickly. DOWNLOAD

Capital Planning in the Public Sector: Constraints, Community and Countermeasures This guide examines how state and local governments approach capital planning when budgets are constrained and infrastructure needs continue to grow. DOWNLOAD

The Cable Industry Is Investing in America's Connected Future Cable broadband providers fuel American innovation by increasing access and opportunity. America's technology future depends on investing where it matters most— connection. Learn more.

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

Preparing for Medicaid's New Redetermination Mandates Learn how to prepare for more frequent eligibility reviews, strengthen constituent communications and reduce administrative burden ahead of new Medicaid mandates. 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

Selected Webinars focusing on public sector operations being offered during the week ending August 7, 2026.

Register now and watch at your leisure!

How Evolving AI Is Transforming Public Sector Outcomes Hear how AI is redrawing the threat landscape and why Zero Trust is quickly becoming the baseline. WATCH NOW

AI-Powered SOC Modernization: Building 24/7 Cyber Resilience AI-powered SOCs help security teams detect threats faster, automate response and extend 24/7 cyber resilience with limited staff. WATCH NOW

AI vs. AI: The New Fraud Threats Targeting Government Programs AI-driven fraud is scaling fast — learn how agencies can detect synthetic identities and stop improper payments before they happen. WATCH NOW

Preventing Outbound Email Data Loss Across the Public Sector Learn how behavioral AI and adaptive email security help public sector organizations prevent misdirected emails and data loss. WATCH NOW

Workforce Management and Security Resilience with FedRAMP and StateRAMP Learn how agencies can strengthen their security posture with FedRAMP and StateRAMP compliance. WATCH NOW

Building a Strong Foundation for AI in Government IT Learn how to modernize and adopt AI while maintaining compliance, reducing risk and increasing efficiency. WATCH NOW

Claimant's refusal to comply with the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene's COVID-19 vaccination mandate determined to be for personal and secular reasons

2026-07-24T09:00:00.000-04:00

The New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene had mandated that all New York City employees, with exceptions not relevant in the instant action, obtain a COVID-19 vaccination. Claimant, an emergency medical technician for the New York City Fire Department [NYFD], sought a religious exemption from the mandate. NYFD denied Claimant's application and after Claimant failed to provide proof of vaccination, NYFD terminated his employment.

Claimant's subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the New York City Department of Labor, which decision was affirmed after a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ].

After a series of administrative appeals, Claimant was ultimately found to have failed to demonstrate that "his noncompliance with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief and, therefore, his voluntary separation from employment was without good cause". Claimant appealed.

The Appellate Division, noting that whether a claimant has good cause to leave their employment and whether their conduct is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, are factual issues for the Unemployment Appeals Board [Board] to resolve and "the Board's determination will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence".

Deferring to the Board's credibility assessments and the inferences to be drawn from Claimant's varied testimony and submissions in his effort to excused from the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene's COVID-19 mandate, the Appellate Division found that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "given [Claimant's] inconsistent testimony and admission to taking vaccines in the past and willingness to take them in the future, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that [Claimant's] refusal to comply with the vaccination mandate was for personal and secular reasons, including safety concerns, rather than for sincerely held religious beliefs and, therefore, that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause".

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

Artificial intelligence is now so powerful that AI companies are flagging their own models as cybersecurity threats

2026-07-23T09:05:00.000-04:00

That’s a wake-up call: Once a server room concern, cybersecurity has become a leadership and cultural imperative. And no one is exempt.

Join Inside Higher Ed editorial leaders Sara Custer and Colleen Flaherty on August 4 for a webcast bringing together technology and senior campus leaders to map the AI-driven cybersecurity risk landscape facing colleges and universities in 2026 and beyond. Panelists will examine what institutions can do at every level: from AI-powered defenses to something too often overlooked—equipping students with the cybersecurity literacy they’ll rely on for life.

How Ready Is Your Institution?
AI, Cyber Risk and the Leadership Agenda

Tuesday, August 4, at 2 p.m. E.T.

Can't attend the webcast? You should still register—all registrants will receive a recording of the webcast and a copy of the presentation slides.

Law enforcement personnel complete specialized auto insurance fraud training

2026-07-23T09:00:00.000-04:00

On July 22, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced that nearly 270 law enforcement officials from 55 agencies participated in specialized training on combatting auto insurance fraud and related topics at the New York State Police Academy in Albany.

The training, led by the New York State Police and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), was designed to strengthen the skills of investigators and local law enforcement professionals so they can better detect, investigate and prosecute financial crimes, including auto insurance fraud. This partnership builds on the Governor’s commitment to tackling insurance fraud and lowering the cost of auto insurance for New Yorkers.

“New York has experienced a sharp increase in suspected incidents of auto insurance fraud and the wave of hardship it has placed on law-abiding vehicle owners,” Governor Hochul said. “Together with our partners, we are enforcing the law, protecting New Yorkers from rising costs, and making it clear that fraud will not be tolerated — anywhere in this state. I remain committed to supporting our colleagues in law enforcement and providing the necessary resources to intercept this devastating crime.”

New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James said, “Auto insurance fraud is no minor crime — the perpetrators are organized and deliberate, and it often intersects with other criminal activity. This training will improve collaboration across agencies, help to identify repeat offenders and organized groups, and make targeted arrests that have real impact. I thank Governor Hochul for her unwavering support and the New York State Department of Financial Services for their partnership and instrumental work on this training.”

New York State Department of Financial Services Acting Superintendent Kaitlin Asrow said, “DFS is proud to partner with the New York State Police and law enforcement agencies statewide to advance Governor Hochul’s mission to crack down on insurance fraud that increases insurance costs for drivers. Today’s training strengthens our efforts to hold criminals accountable and reduce insurance premiums for New Yorkers.”

The symposium builds upon the partnership between State Police and DFS, addressing financial crimes and various aspects of auto insurance fraud, including staged automobile collisions, along with investigations involving deceptive contractors and schemes targeting seniors. The training featured an overview of relevant insurance fraud statutes, case studies and practical instruction from the DFS Insurance Frauds Bureau and the New York State Police BCI Financial Crimes and Special Investigation Units on core investigative techniques. Participants included law enforcement from New York State Police, police departments, sheriff’s offices, university police departments and district attorneys’ offices.

Governor Hochul’s Plan to Combat Insurance Fraud, Reduce Insurance Premiums

Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, New York State is committed to combatting insurance fraud and reducing vehicle insurance premiums. The 2027 enacted budget included sweeping reforms to address fraudulent claims and staged accidents that have contributed to elevated auto insurance costs for New York families.

This includes:

Enabling prosecutors to seek criminal penalties against any individual responsible for organizing a staged accident, not just the driver

Capping damages for those engaging in unlawful behavior at the time of an accident

Tightening the statutory definitions to clarify what constitutes a ‘serious injury,’ reserving damages for those able to objectively demonstrate that they’ve suffered a serious injury

Limiting damages for individuals who are mostly at fault for an accident

Applying stringent oversight on insurance company rates

Prohibiting insurance companies from setting rates based on extraneous personal factors such as homeownership statutes, education or zip code.

Under Governor Hochul, DFS has transformed its approach to combating financial fraud by rebuilding and modernizing its Insurance Frauds Bureau, including through hiring new leadership and subject matter experts, investing in modern technology solutions, securing essential resources and strengthening partnerships with law enforcement statewide.

The New York State Police remain committed to safeguarding New Yorkers through proactive enforcement, strategic partnerships, and continuous professional development. By increasing awareness, training and fostering cross-agency collaboration, State Police will crack down on bad actors who are driving up these costs at the expense of New Yorkers. The specialized training from the symposium will be permanently incorporated into the New York State Police BCI school curriculum for future investigators.

This training builds on Governor Hochul’s ongoing efforts to bring down insurance costs and deliver reforms from the recently enacted New York State Budget that address key factors driving up auto insurance premiums, including insurance fraud and excessive litigation costs. Earlier this month, DFS issued guidance to implement these reforms.

State Senator Jamaal T. Bailey said, “Insurance fraud isn't a victimless crime; it directly drives up premiums and puts an unfair financial burden on hard-working New York families. By equipping nearly 270 law enforcement officers across 55 agencies with specialized tools to detect and prosecute these schemes, we are sending a clear message: deceptive practices will not be tolerated in our state. Dismantling fraudulent networks, holding bad actors accountable, and delivering real economic relief to drivers is imperative. I want to thank Governor Kathy Hochul for her leadership, Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Superintendent of NYS Police Steven G. James, Acting Superintendent of the NYDFS Kaitlin Asrow and all our law enforcement partners for their unwavering commitment to protecting consumers and safeguarding our communities.”

Assemblymember David Weprin said, “I commend Governor Hochul, the Department of Financial Services, and the New York State Police for bringing together law enforcement agencies from across the state to strengthen their ability to detect, investigate, and prosecute these crimes. By strengthening collaboration between the Department of Financial Services, the New York State Police, prosecutors and local law enforcement, we are giving investigators the tools they need to hold bad actors accountable, protect consumers and help make auto insurance more affordable for New Yorkers. For years, I have raised concerns about the growing impact of staged accidents, fraudulent claims and the abuse of our insurance system on hardworking families and honest businesses. The reforms enacted in this year's State Budget, coupled with this specialized training for law enforcement, represent an important step toward addressing those concerns.”

###

Employee's absence from work as the result of being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison deemed to have impeded the Employer’s ability to fulfill its mission

2026-07-22T09:00:00.000-04:00

A New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], Jonathan Fogel, recommended termination of the employment of a sanitation worker [Employee] who was absent without leave [“AWOL”] for approximately ten months.

While employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation [Agency], Employee was convicted of assault in the second degree and sentenced to two years in prison. His "Employee's absence from work due being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison was deemed to have impeded the Employer’s ability to fulfill its mission as the result of his incarceration.

The Employee attempted to have the Agency's administrative disciplinary charge dismissed for improper service because he was not personally served while in prison. Judge Fogel, however, found that the method of service used by the Agency - mailing the disciplinary charge to the Employee by certified mail via the United States Postal Service addressed to the Employee where Employee was incarcerated - satisfied due process requirements.

There was no dispute that Employee had been absent from work since February 2025 and the ALJ found that Agency had proven the charge. Although Employee had made an effort to retain his job by applying for a leave of absence, Judge Fogel found that the Employee’s continued absence impeded the Agency’s ability to fulfill its mission and recommended the Employee be terminated from his position.

Click HERE to access ALJ Fogel's findings and recommended penalty posted on the Internet.

Employees provisionally appointed to their position pursuant to §65 of New York State's Civil Service Law typically so serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority

2026-07-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul the decision of the New York City Department of Correction [DOC] to remove Plaintiff from his Assistant Deputy Warden position to which he had been provisionally appointed and restore him to his former employment status of permanent Captain.

DOC appealed and the Appellate Division "unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law," denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed Plaintiff's action brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

Explaining that Supreme Court should have denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul DOC's decision to discontinue his employment from his provisional appointment as Assistant Deputy Warden to his former position in which he held permanent appointment as a Captain, the Appellate Division noted that provisional appointments made pursuant to Civil Service Law §65 "carry no expectation nor right of tenure" and provisionally appointed incumbents are not entitled to the protections in the position afforded permanent employees pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

Citing Mahinda v Board of Collective Bargaining, 91 AD3d 564, the Appellate Division's decision notes that an employee serving in a position as a provisional employee may "be terminated at any time, without a hearing, for almost any reason, or for no reason at all," so long as the termination does not violate any constitutional or statutory provision and is not arbitrary and capricious or done in bad faith."

In addition, the Appellate Division pointed out that Plaintiff's provisional appointment did not ripen into a permanent one after a one-year probationary period as [such] appointments are mere stop-gaps" and may be succeeded by a permanent appointment only as a result of an examination and eligibility in accordance with New York State's Civil Service Law.

The Appellate Division's decision also pointed out that the fact that Plaintiff was served with disciplinary charges and specifications and notice him of his right to a hearing "does not suggest that his appointment as assistant deputy warden was permanent as Petitioner's underlying permanent appointment to the position of captain entitled him to such charges and a hearing before being removed from his Captain's position or subjected to an other disciplinary penalty such as a loss of vacation days in contrast to Plaintiff's being subject to removal from his provisional appointment as assistant deputy warden at any time without charges preferred, a statement of reasons being given or a hearing being held.

Turning to other arguments advanced by Plaintiff, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's race, gender, and disability discrimination claims pursuant to State and City Human Rights Laws failed because the record contained no evidence giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination and Plaintiff presented no evidence that DOC's decision to restore him to his permanent position of Captain following Plaintiff's violating a number of DOC's rules and regulations was arbitrary and capricious or done in bad faith.

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

Selected GovTech Webinars for the week of July 20, 2026

2026-07-20T09:05:00.000-04:00

Your weekly lineup of learning is here! Can’t watch live? Register anyway to catch the session on-demand whenever it fits your schedule.

TUESDAY, JULY 21 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET - Next-Level Constituent Service: How AI Can Transform Government Contact Centers Join for a discussion of how leading public-sector organizations are putting AI to work in contact centers and other resident-facing operations. Click here to REGISTER

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - From Myth to Mission: How Evolving AI Is Transforming Public Sector Outcomes AI is accelerating cyber threats. Learn how Zero Trust and breach containment can limit impact and protect critical systems. Click here to REGISTER

Appellate Division finds that Plaintiffs, alleging violations State and Federal Civil Rights Law, failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action to recover damages

2026-07-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this action by certain employees to recover damages for allegedly having to work in an hostile work environment and had been subjected to "retaliation" because they had complained, the Professional Staff Congress [Union] and other named respondents [Defendants] appealed a Supreme Court's order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Plaintiffs, employees of New York City Kingsborough Community College, had commenced the instant action against the Union and certain officers of the Union representing the Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for alleged religious discrimination. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that their employer, The City University of New York [CUNY], certain individual coworkers, and the Union had engaged in discrimination against them in the workplace because of the Plaintiffs' religion.

Noting a work environment is generally controlled by the employer, the Appellate Division said "labor unions have 'no affirmative duty' to prevent harassment or discrimination within the confines of the workplace" and the union's obligation not to discriminate arises "only when the union is performing an agency function in a representational capacity". The Appellate Division opined that "A union can only be liable pursuant to Title VII for situations in which the union is responsible for discrimination against or creating a hostile environment because of the member's protected characteristic".

Pointing out that Title VII, the NYS Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law all require a plaintiff suing a union for discrimination to demonstrate actions or activities which may be properly imputed to a union such as:

(1) "The Union breached its duty of fair representation to plaintiff:

(2) "[The] Union's conduct was motivated by animus toward the plaintiff's protected status"; and

(3) "[A union representative's] role in causing or attempting to cause a hostile work environment".

Further, the Appellate Division explained that a plaintiff must show not only that the union had actual or imputed knowledge of the improper conduct, but also that the union representative's conduct related to union activity and that in acting in such a manner, the representative breached the union's duty of fair representation.

Observing that in the instant matter "there were no allegations in the [Plaintiffs] complaint that any of the alleged discriminatory acts were undertaken by union representatives acting on behalf of the union or that any of the alleged acts were related to union activity, and no allegations [in the Plaintiffs' complaint] that the union breached its duty of fair representation", the Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Union's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss allegations of a hostile work environment insofar as asserted against the Union.

As to alleged "retaliation", the Appellate Division noted that "To make out a prima facie case of retaliation by a union, a plaintiff must show that (1) [the plaintiff] was engaged in an activity protected under Title VII and known to the union; (2) [the plaintiff] suffered adverse union action; and (3) there was "a causal connection between the protected activity and the union's actions". In the words of the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the motion of the union defendants which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging retaliation insofar as asserted against them".

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

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 17, 2026

2026-07-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

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

4 Essential Steps for Building Scalable Transportation Infrastructure Explore four steps agencies can take to build a scalable foundation for the future. DOWNLOAD

AI can improve efficiency and fairness But only with strong oversight and accountability. READ NOW

How Branded Communications Can Improve Government Billing Learn how consistently branded communications can increase constituent trust, improve engagement and support stronger government billing. DOWNLOAD

Better Prepare Your Agency with Data Automation Automate more verifications in advance of new eligibility requirements using data-first solutions. Learn More

Cities invest in architecturally striking museums Critics are asking whether landmark buildings are eclipsing the art, history and public purpose they were meant to serve. Read More

Essential Steps to Building a Strong Grant Compliance Framework From internal controls to reporting and monitoring, this guide explores the key components of a stronger, more sustainable approach to grant compliance. DOWNLOAD

Building the Exact Applications Government Agencies Need Learn how NH Housing replaced manual workflows with 7 custom low-code web portals seamlessly. See How They Did It

Balancing Speed and Flexibility in Public Sector IT Explore the scalable, phased roadmap to transforming government apps without mission disruption. Read the Whitepaper

A toolkit from a national commission Emphasizes the importance of partnerships between public health leaders and elected officials. Read More

New York State's Comptroller posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and programs on the Internet.

2026-07-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

On July 16, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and Programs listed below on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted color to access the audit.

Battery Park City Authority – Access Controls and Vulnerability Management Over Critical Systems (2025-S-8) The Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) is a New York State public benefit corporation responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the 92-acre Battery Park City neighborhood in lower Manhattan. BPCA generates revenue primarily through ground leases and event permits, managing the latter through its own system, while various other functions utilize third-party vendors. Auditors evaluated BPCA’s information technology governance and security posture and identified areas where BPCA could improve overall governance and certain security controls to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its system and data.

Public Service Commission – Application Review and Site Permitting for Major Renewable Energy Projects (Follow-Up) (2025-F-27) Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), the Public Service Commission (PSC) was required to establish a renewable energy program by the end of June 2021 to meet two requirements: by 2030, a minimum of 70% of statewide electric generation secured by load-serving entities to meet their customers’ demand must be generated by renewable energy systems; and by 2040, the statewide electrical demand system must be zero emissions. In April 2020, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) was created to undertake the review of proposed major renewable energy facilities to meet the State’s goals. ORES was intended to reduce the time to site major renewable energy projects and bring them online faster. A prior audit, issued in April 2024, found that, while the overall time between application and final siting permit had improved since the creation of ORES, the process took significantly longer than originally envisioned because certain aspects of the process were not considered. PSC officials made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report and implemented the initial report’s one recommendation.

New York State Health Insurance Program – UnitedHealthcare: Accuracy of Payments for Surgical Procedures Involving Multiple Providers (2024-S-15) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York (United) administers the medical/surgical benefit of the Empire Plan. Surgical procedures sometimes require multiple providers, such as co-surgeons (two or more physicians who work together as primary surgeons performing distinct parts of a surgical procedure) or surgical assistants (physicians or other qualified health care professionals who assist physicians performing a surgical procedure). United’s reimbursement policies require co-surgeons and surgical assistants to report their roles during a surgical procedure to ensure claims are paid appropriately. For the period from January 2019 to June 2024, auditors identified nearly $12.5 million in potential overpayments for surgical procedures involving co-surgeons or surgical assistants.

Office of Children and Family Services – Child Care Stabilization Grants (Follow-Up) (2026-F-4) The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) administers several child care grant programs. Between May and June 2021, OCFS received $1.8 billion from the American Rescue Plan Act, plus $469 million from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. OCFS used the money to fund several COVID-19 response programs, awarding $1.173 billion in two rounds for grants to stabilize the child care sector and the child care workforce. A prior audit, issued in November 2024, found weaknesses in OCFS’ monitoring of grantee expenses claimed under the program to provide assurance that funds were used for allowable expenses. OCFS officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, one was implemented, and two were partially implemented.

New York State Health Insurance Program – Anthem Blue Cross: Coordination of Benefits With Medicare (Follow-Up) (2025-F-25) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and Anthem Blue Cross administers the Hospital Program of the Empire Plan. Many enrollees and their dependents have additional insurance coverage, such as Medicare, and Medicare typically pays claims as primary (Empire Plan typically pays secondary) for enrollees who are age 65 and older and retired. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, found that Anthem improperly paid $5,259,416 because benefits were not properly coordinated. Anthem has made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented, and three were partially implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Shield of David: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-24) Shield of David (Shield), d.b.a. The Shield Institute, is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Special Class and full-day Special Class in an Integrated Setting services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, Shield reported approximately $10.3 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $221,752 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Department of Environmental Conservation – Monitoring of Air Quality (Facility Permits and Registrations) (Follow-Up) (2025-F-13) The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issues air pollution control permits and registrations in accordance with its federally approved Air Pollution Control Permitting Program (Program), and its Environmental Justice Permitting Policy (Policy) (designed to address the fair treatment of all people regardless of race, income, national origin, or color, with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies) outlines DEC’s responsibilities for incorporating environmental justice into its review of air permit applications. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, found weaknesses in several aspects of DEC’s oversight of the Program—namely, implementation of the Policy and monitoring of permitted and registered facilities—that undermine its ability to ensure compliance with the Program and protect the State’s air from harmful pollutants. DEC officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, two were implemented, and two were partially implemented.

###

New York State Comptroller announces the New York State Tax Cap will remain at 2% for 2027

2026-07-16T09:00:00.000-04:00

On July 15, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announce New York State's 2027 property tax level will capped at 2% for local governments that operate on a calendar-based fiscal year according to data released today by State Comptroller DiNapoli. This figure affects tax cap calculations for all counties, towns and fire districts, as well as 44 cities and 13 villages.

"For the sixth consecutive year, the allowable tax levy growth will be limited to 2%," DiNapoli said. “Local governments are tasked with the difficult challenge of delivering essential services efficiently while managing higher costs of goods and services, as well as the persistent threat of destabilizing federal actions. My office offers technical assistance for those that need it and provides transparency to the public so they understand the fiscal pressures facing local governments.”

In accordance with state law, DiNapoli’s office calculated the 2027 inflation factor at 3.13% for those local governments with a calendar fiscal year, above the 2% allowable levy increase.

The tax cap, which first applied to local governments (excluding New York City) and school districts in 2012, limits annual tax levy increases to the lesser of the inflation factor or 2% with certain exceptions. The law, however, includes a provision that allows municipalities to override the cap.

Chart
Allowable Tax Levy Growth Factors for Local Governments

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System

Challenging New York City’s congestion-pricing program for vehicles entering its business district in Midtown and Lower Manhattan

2026-07-15T09:00:00.000-04:00

Two New York counties—Rockland and Orange [Plaintiffs]—sued the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, [Defendants] alleging that New York City’s congestion-pricing program imposed an unauthorized tax, unconstitutionally restricted the right to travel, and violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Excessive Fines Clauses of New York State's and the U.S. Constitution. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarized its decision in the instant appeal challenging the District Court's ruling in County of Rockland v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, as follows:

New York City’s congestion-pricing program charges a toll for vehicles entering the Central Business District in Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Assuming without deciding that the toll is not a tax under New York law, the Second Circuit concluded that the District Court correctly dismissed causes of action, noting that Orange County failed to allege that congestion pricing violates the right to travel.

In the words of the Circuit Court, "The program does not create invidious distinctions among drivers or impose more than a minor restriction on the right to travel".

Accordingly, the Circuit Court, observing that it had reviewed the unresolved issues the District Court's ruling "only for reasonableness", opined that Orange County failed to allege that the challenged toll is an unreasonable user fee, noted that:

1. Plaintiffs failed to state Due Process or Equal Protection claims because the congestion-pricing program is rationally related to New York’s legitimate interests in raising funds for mass transit and reducing vehicular congestion; and

2. "Rockland County does not plausibly allege that the toll is an unconstitutionally excessive fine".

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed "the judgments of the district court".

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

Responding to a New York State Freedom of Information Law request

2026-07-14T09:00:00.000-04:00

The Town received Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request and on the same day responded to the request by advising Plaintiff' that all of the requested records could be found in "permit files" on the Town's website. The Town then provided Plaintiff' with the appropriate the website's address, told Plaintiff how the website could be accessed via the Internet, and provided Plaintiff with information on how to access permit files via the Town's "public kiosk." The Town's letter to Plaintiff also indicated that "[Plaintiff's] FOIL [request] is now completed."

Petitioner administratively appealed the Town's determination, but the Town did not respond and Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78.

Supreme Court dismissed [1] Plaintiff's petition; [2] Plaintiff's application for an award of attorney's fees and litigation costs; and [3] Plaintiff's request for a judgment declaring that the Town acted unlawfully in withholding records from Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

Observing that to promote open government and public accountability New York State' FOIL "imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public", the Appellate Division explained that "[w]hen faced with a FOIL request, an agency must either disclose the record sought, deny the request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search".

Here, said the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court properly granted the Town's motion to dismiss that branch of Plaintiff's complaint which sought to compel the production of the "requested records" as the Town's FOIL response was not a denial but, in fact, informed the Plaintiff how to locate the requested records either via the Town's website or in person.

The Appellate Division's decision also noted that "Although the Town referred the [Plaintiff] to a publicly available website, the [Plaintiff] did not request the records in any specific format" and the Town was not required to certify that any requested records could not be found after diligent search as such a certification requirement is only triggered "when, in lieu of granting a FOIL request, the agency finds that it either does not possess the item requested or is unable to locate it after a diligent search".

Here the records requested were always available to the Plaintiff, who was so advised prior to the commencement of the Plaintiff's instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding and thus the litigation "did not trigger the production of such records".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary fees pursuant to Public Officers Law §89(4)(c)(i) "because even though Plaintiff administratively appealed the Town's FOIL determination and the Town did not provide a response, there was nothing to administratively appeal, as the Town did not deny the Plaintiff's FOIL request".

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

New York State's Comptroller releases taxpayer migration dashboard

2026-07-13T10:00:00.000-04:00

On June 10, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli unveiled a new taxpayer migration dashboard today where users can track the number of personal income tax (PIT) filers moving in and out of New York.

DiNapoli has been monitoring taxpayer trends, most recently issuing a report that examined pre-pandemic trends in PIT tax filings and a follow-up report that analyzed changes in the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Using data from the Department of Taxation and Finance, this dashboard contains the latest numbers on part-year resident tax filers and will be updated annually to allow the public the ability to analyze trends on taxpayers moving into and out of the state each year.

Part-year resident tax filers made up 2% of New York state filers in 2024. These filers are those whose tax returns indicated they moved into or out of the state during the tax year. Though a small share of all taxpayers, the movement of these part-year residents can affect collections over time—particularly since New York has experienced a net out-migration of resident filers since 2015. However, the net out-migration of tax filers is not equal to state population gained or lost.

“Personal income taxes are New York’s largest tax revenue source, accounting for more than one out of two tax dollars collected by the state,” DiNapoli said. “When personal income taxes drive so much of the state’s revenue, even small shifts in the number of tax filers can have an impact over time. The pandemic caused a large movement of taxpayers out of New York in 2020, but the dashboard shows this was an aberration. Although out-migration has continued, it slowed considerably and was well below pre-pandemic levels in 2024. I remain very concerned about the net loss of married, middle-class filers, and urge policymakers to continue their efforts to improve affordability for New York’s families.”

The interactive chart provides data for tax filers moving into and out of New York in a given year based on part-year resident filers, and allows for analysis based on filing status or income. For example, the dashboard indicates:

In 2024 there were 256,164 part-year filers; of these filers, 121,251 moved into New York, while 134,913 left the state, a net out-migration of 13,662 taxpayers—a loss of approximately 1 in 1,000 resident taxpayers.
The greatest net loss of taxpayers was among married filers with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 – a net loss of 8,200, or more than half of the total net out-migration, in 2024.
Net out-migration rates increase at higher income levels; in 2024, net out-migration averaged 1 in every 100 resident filers with incomes over $500,000.
One positive post-pandemic trend is that there has been a net in-migration of single filers each year since 2022.

Dashboard

Taxpayer Migration in New York State

Taxpayer Movement During the Pandemic: Comparing 2020 and 2021 to Pre-Pandemic Baseline

###

Workers' Comp 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

2026-07-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its free webinar series for employees next week, and there is still time to register!

On the dates listed below, the Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will discuss the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. Presentations will also cover:

Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
How to file a claim
How to get help with your claim if needed
Tips and best practices for injured workers

The sessions are free and there will be time at the end for questions and will be held on:

Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Wednesday, September 2, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Register here

More information

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

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

Having trouble?

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

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 10, 2026

2026-07-11T08:16:00.000-04:00

How Branded Communications Can Improve Government Billing Learn how consistently branded communications can increase constituent trust, improve engagement and support stronger government billing. DOWNLOAD

Fewer Births Mean Fewer Students. Now is the time for policymakers to take steps to mitigate the impact and better support schools and students. Read More

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

Using Existing Platforms to Meet New Political Priorities With 39 gubernatorial elections set for fall 2026, navigating change is a crucial skill for state CIOs. This paper explores how CIOs can deliver fast and visible wins that align with policy priorities of incoming administrations. DOWNLOAD

The AI-Enhanced Meeting: Improving Access and Driving Better Outcomes Discover how AI is transforming the way public sector teams meet, collaborate and deliver results. In this paper, you’ll learn how AI-powered tools are helping agencies overcome common challenges in hybrid environments. DOWNLOAD

Dangerous Heat Is Coming To More Parts Of The Country Than Ever. The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a library of remediation strategies and policies. Read More

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud Uncover common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. DOWNLOAD

Redefining Government Efficiency State and local efficiency initiatives are going beyond cost control. While savings clearly matter, a growing number of these efforts also seek to connect spending to outcomes, increase institutional capacity, and improve the responsiveness and usability of resident services. This report examines how the concept of government efficiency is evolving and offers examples of what these trends look like in practice. DOWNLOAD

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

Audits of New York State local governments and New York public schools posted on the Internet

2026-07-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

On July 9, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the local government and public school audits listed below were issued and have been posted on the Internet.

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

Village of Owego – Records and Reports (Tioga County) Village officials did not maintain complete, accurate and timely accounting records and reports. The clerk-treasurer’s accounting records contained errors and omitted transactions, and monthly bank reconciliations were not prepared. Because the clerk-treasurer also did not file the village’s annual financial report on time and the board did not perform an annual audit of the clerk-treasurer’s accounting records, officials did not comply with state laws.

Levittown Union Free School District – Financial Management (Nassau County) The board and district officials did not manage fund balance effectively. They overestimated certain appropriations, underestimated certain revenues and appropriated surplus fund balance and reserves to balance the budget when these funds were not necessary for operations. The board and district officials’ consistent practice of appropriating fund balance that is not needed to finance operations results in real property tax levies that are higher than needed.

Town of Newcomb – Town Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Essex County) The supervisor did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records and reports. As a result, the town board and town officials could not determine or manage the town’s true financial condition. This also impaired the board’s ability to make informed financial decisions and caused taxpayer inequities.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County) Auditors determined that the city’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and the related justification documents were in material compliance with the requirements of the fiscal agent act. The city’s 2026-27 adopted budget totals $1.64 billion, which includes operating and debt service funding of $822.5 million for the Yonkers public schools and $813.6 million for the city. The 2026-27 budget is $87.1 million more than the city’s budget for 2025-26, an increase of 5.6%.Auditors noted certain budgetary practices continue to pose risks to the city’s long-term financial condition. Specifically, the budget relies on $147.2 million in nonrecurring funding sources, including appropriated fund balance, one-time state and federal aid and revenues from property sales to finance recurring operating expenditures. Similar concerns have been communicated to city officials in prior years; however, the city continues to rely on these funding practices to balance the city’s budget. As a result, the city may face significant budgetary and cash flow challenges in future years if these resources are unavailable.

Sayville Fire District – Claims Audit (Suffolk County) The board did not properly audit and approve all claims before payment. When the board does not perform a thorough and complete review of claims to ensure that they are supported by adequate invoices or other documentation, the district has an increased risk that it could incur unnecessary costs or pay for goods or services that are not valid district expenditures.

Copiague Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Suffolk County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Copiague Union Free School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in a prior audit, Copiague Union Free School District – Information Technology (2023M-150), released in March 2024. The audit determined that district officials did not properly manage nonstudent network user accounts and financial software access controls. Of the four audit recommendations, the district’s IT director and officials fully implemented three recommendations and partially implemented one. Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing recommendations related to sensitive IT control weaknesses that were reported to officials confidentially and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

New York State government digital summit meeting scheduled

2026-07-09T09:00:00.000-04:00

This complimentary event is designed for government leaders and technology professionals who are responsible for delivering secure, efficient, and citizen-focused digital services. From cybersecurity and AI to data governance and digital service delivery, sessions are built to spark insight, encourage collaboration, and support real-world implementation.

New York Digital Government Summit
Date: September 22, 2026
Location: Albany Capital Center

Register to reserve your seat!

For registration assistance, contact:
Lee Vang / Government Technology / 916-932-1047 / lvang@govtech.com

Supplemental Military Leave Benefits

2026-07-09T08:50:00.000-04:00

The New York State Department of Civil Service posted the following notice on the Internet on July 8, 2026.

Supplemental Military Leave Benefits

I.D. No. CVS-14-26-00017-A Filing No. 563 Filing Date: 2026-06-23 Effective Date: 2026-07-08

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:

Action taken: Amendment of Sections 21.15 and 28-1.17 of Title 4 NYCRR.

Statutory authority: Civil Service Law, section 6(1)

Subject: Supplemental military leave benefits.

Purpose: To extend the availability of supplemental military leave benefits for certain New York State employees until December 31, 2026.

The text or summary was published in the April 8, 2026 issue of the Register, I.D. No. CVS-14-26-00017-P.

Final rule as compared with last published rule: No changes.

Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

Jennifer Paul, NYS Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-6598, email: commops@cs.ny.gov

Assessment of Public Comment The agency received no public comment.

Police officer recovers damages for psychological and emotional injuries sustained while on duty pursuant to New York State's "Son of Sam Law"

2026-07-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

In February 2020, Respondent entered a New York City police station, drew a gun and opened fire, wounding a police lieutenant. Respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder in the first degree and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 23 years to life.

In December 2023, the New York City Comptroller notified the New York State Office of Victim Services [Victim Services] which was acting on behalf of a police officer [PO] who was on duty in the police station during Respondent's attack that Respondent was to receive a settlement of $189,300 in connection with a class action. Victim Services relayed that information to PO and PO told Victim Services of PO's intent to commence a civil action against Respondent to recover damages for psychological and emotional injuries PO sustained as a result of Respondent's crime.

Victim Services, acting on PO's behalf, then commenced a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law §632-a, commonly known as the Son of Sam Law, seeking a preliminary injunction to preserve the settlement funds. Supreme Court initially granted Victim Services' request for a temporary restraining order freezing those funds until joinder of issue. Following a hearing at which Respondent appeared pro se, Supreme Court determined that PO was not a "crime victim" within the meaning of Executive Law §632-a (1) (d) because PO did not satisfy the definition of "victim" in Executive Law §621 (5), which, as relevant here, encompasses "a person who suffers personal physical injury as a direct result of a crime" (Executive Law §621 [5] [a]) and dismissed Victim Services' petition and vacated the temporary restraining order. Victim Services appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, observing that "Executive Law §632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime by allowing crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protecting those funds while litigation is pending" and a "[c]rime" is, as relevant here, is "any felony defined in the laws of the state" (see Executive Law §632-a [1] [a] [i]), and a "[c]rime victim" is "the victim of a crime" (see Executive Law § 632-a [1] [d] [i]), a phrase that "includes the subject of the felonious conduct".

Explaining that Executive Law §621 "govern[s] the general powers of [Victim Services]" and provides that its definitions apply throughout Executive Law Article 22 — of which Executive Law §632-a is a part", the Appellate Division said that "The issue is therefore whether Executive Law §632-a's definition of 'crime victim' incorporates Executive Law §621's definition of 'victim' or replaces it" The Appellate Division then observed that "It is well settled that, when interpreting a statute, [courts] attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature and the starting point for discerning such intent is the language of the statute, citing Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Gordon, 66 AD3d 1213, and other New York State Court decisions.

The Appellate Division's decision observes that the structure and language of Executive Law § 632-a (1) (d) demonstrate that its reference to "the victim of a crime" does not incorporate the definition of "victim" in Executive Law § 621 (5). Where the Legislature intended to incorporate a definition from Executive Law § 621, it did so by explicit cross-reference. Thus, in addition to "the victim of a crime" (Executive Law § 632-a [1] [d] [i]), a "crime victim" under the Son of Sam Law includes "the representative of a crime victim as defined in [Executive Law §621(6)]" and "a good samaritan as defined in [Executive Law § 621(7)]". The absence of a comparable cross-reference to Executive Law §621 (5)'s definition of "victim" must be regarded as deliberate (see People v Finnegan, 85 NY2d 53, 59 [1995], cert denied 516 US 919 [1995]). It follows that "the victim of a crime" under Executive Law § 632-a (1) (d) (i) is not confined to persons who suffer physical injury (see Executive Law § 621 [5] [a]; cf. Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Mobayed, 245 AD3d 1085). Applying the statute as written, the Appellate Division concluded that PO is a "crime victim" pursuant to Executive Law § 632-a.

Turning to Victim Services' application for a preliminary injunction freezing Respondent's settlement funds, the Appellate Division opined that Victim Services satisfied each of prongs of the appropriate test: A probability of success on the merits; PO's additional details of Respondent's conduct and PO's resulting losses and injuries; and the risk of irreparable injury without provisional relief is manifest, as dissipation of the settlement funds would bar any recovery by PO and potentially other injured victims of Respondent's crime.

The Appellate Division then observed that 10% of Respondent's settlement — $18,930 — is statutorily exempt from restraint and considering the policy objectives of the Son of Sam Law, the balance of equities favor Victim Services and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to issue an appropriate preliminary injunction.

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

The Appellate Division confirmed the administrative determination of the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General made in the course of the Inspector General's seeking reimbursement for certain Medicaid payments made to petitioner

2026-07-07T15:00:00.000-04:00

In what could be subtitled "a judicial autopsy of an administrative decision", the text of the Appellate Division's decision in the instant matter is set out below:

In the Matter of National Seating & Mobility, Inc., Petitioner,

New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General et al., Respondents.

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2026

CV-25-0551

Calendar Date: May 26, 2026

Before: Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Mcshan, Mackey And Ryba, JJ.

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, New York City (Mark J. Silberman of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, Illinois, of counsel, admitted pro hac vice), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondents.

Ceresia, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Office of the Medicaid Inspector General to obtain reimbursement for certain Medicaid payments made to petitioner.

Petitioner provides customized wheelchairs and related durable medical equipment (hereinafter DME) to individuals, including Medicaid recipients. Respondent Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (hereinafter OMIG) is an independent office within respondent Department of Health (hereinafter DOH) responsible for "detecting and combating Medicaid fraud and abuse and maximiz[ing] the recoupment of improper Medicaid payments" (Public Health Law § 30). In December 2020, OMIG notified petitioner that it would be conducting an audit of a random sample of 160 Medicaid claims petitioner submitted in calendar years 2015 through 2017 (hereinafter the audit period). During the audit period, petitioner had filed 1,586 claims totaling $388,829. OMIG performed a review of the 160 sample claims and then issued a draft audit report identifying, as relevant here, 110 claims with inadequate supporting documentation. More particularly, OMIG found that for these claims, petitioner had failed to obtain original signed orders from Medicaid recipients' medical providers as required by New York's Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment Manual: Policy Guidelines (hereinafter the DME policy guidelines). Using statistical sampling methodology, OMIG extrapolated the sample findings to the total number of claims and determined that petitioner had received overpayments in the amount of $270,804. In response to the draft audit report, petitioner raised several objections and provided additional documents. OMIG thereafter issued a final audit report, adhering to its prior conclusions and offering a settlement amount of $251,393. After an administrative hearing held at petitioner's request, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) upheld OMIG's disallowances and total overpayment calculation. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding, and Supreme Court transferred it to this Court (see CPLR 7804 [g]).

We confirm. First, as to petitioner's argument that OMIG improperly enforced the DME policy guidelines without promulgating them under the rulemaking requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter SAPA), this contention is unpreserved for our review because it was not raised at the hearing (see Matter of Woojin Cho v New York State Dept. of Health, Bd. of Professional Med. Conduct, 243 AD3d 1049, 1050-1051 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Rispoli v DiNapoli, 180 AD3d 1127, 1128 [3d Dept 2020]). Instead, it was improperly presented for the first time in petitioner's reply brief (see Matter of Maidenbaum & Sternberg, LLP v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 243 AD3d 1054, 1056 [3d Dept 2025]; Uzamere v State of New York, 240 AD3d 1020, 1021 [3d Dept 2025]). Even if this were not the case, we would find the claim to be lacking in merit. "[S]pecifically exempted from the definition of a rule under [SAPA] are 'forms and instructions, interpretive statements and statements of general policy which in themselves have no legal effect but are merely explanatory' " (Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 240 AD3d 42, 45 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 904 [2025], quoting State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 [2] [b] [iv]; see Mrijaj v Genting N.Y. LLC, 235 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2025], appeal dismissed 43 NY3d 1001 [2025]). In this instance, the relevant section of the DME policy guidelines is an interpretive statement that serves to explain a regulation. That is, petitioner was obligated by regulation to retain each "written order" or "fiscal order" issued by a medical provider (18 NYCRR 505.5 [a] [8]), terms that are defined in the regulation, and the DME policy guidelines explain the various kinds of documents that are acceptable to meet this definition. Critically, a guideline or directive is not a rule subject to SAPA when it "merely address[es] the type of documentation needed to establish whether a predetermined test of eligibility for approval has been met" (Matter of Brightonian Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 212 AD3d 162, 167 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], appeal dismissed 39 NY3d 1144 [2023]), as is the case here.

Turning to the merits, "[i]n reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination rendered after a hearing, this Court must review the record, as a whole, to determine if the agency's decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law" (Matter of Krooks v Delaney, 203 AD3d 1292, 1294 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPLR 7803 [4]). "Substantial evidence is a minimal standard that requires less than the preponderance of the evidence and demands only the existence of a rational basis in the record as a whole to support the findings upon which the determination is based" (Matter of Cooperstown Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing v New York State Dept. of Health, 225 AD3d 1045, 1047 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v McDonald, 243 AD3d 986, 988 [3d Dept 2025]). "If substantial evidence is present in the record, this Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the respondent, even if a contrary result is viable" (Matter of Shanahan v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 198 AD3d 1157, 1158 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of P.C. v Stony Brook Univ., 43 NY3d 574, 581 [2025]).

Pertinent here, a provider "contesting the findings of an OMIG audit . . . has the burden of demonstrating 'that all claims submitted and denied were due and payable under the Medicaid program' " (Matter of Wegman v New York State Dept. of Health, 229 AD3d 862, 864 [3d Dept 2024] [brackets omitted], quoting 18 NYCRR 519.18 [d] [1]; see Matter of Atlanticare Mgt., LLC v Ives, 212 AD3d 132, 137 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 40 NY3d 902 [2023]). In that regard, the provider must agree "to comply with the rules, regulations and official directives" of DOH (18 NYCRR 504.3 [i]) and "to prepare and . . . maintain contemporaneous records demonstrating its right to receive payment under the" program (18 NYCRR 504.3 [a]). As mentioned above, petitioner was required to retain each "written order" or "fiscal order" issued by a medical provider, terms that are "used interchangeably" and defined to mean "any original, signed written order of a practitioner which requests [DME]" (18 NYCRR 505.5 [a] [8]; see 18 NYCRR 517.3 [b] [1]). Under the DME policy guidelines in place during the audit period, a "fiscal order" was acceptable if it was "a signed written order, or electronically transmitted fiscal order." Where a "signed written order" was not written on an official, serialized prescription form, but was instead telephoned or faxed, the DME provider was then responsible for "obtain[ing] the original signed fiscal order from the ordering practitioner within 30 calendar days." By contrast, an "electronically transmitted fiscal order" was one that "originate[d] from the practitioner's computer and [was] directly transmitted to the ... DME provider's computer or fax."

At the hearing, OMIG presented evidence including the orders examined under the audit, as well as testimony pertaining to OMIG's evaluation and ultimate disqualification of 110 of said orders. According to hearing testimony by an auditor with OMIG, these 110 orders constituted "signed written orders" that bore practitioners' signatures. However, none were written on a serialized prescription pad. Instead, OMIG determined that in each instance, a proposed order was sent via fax from petitioner to a practitioner, who then physically signed the order before faxing it back to petitioner. Therefore, OMIG concluded, and the ALJ agreed, that petitioner was required to obtain the original order from the practitioner containing a "wet signature," or one written in ink within 30 days, but it failed to do so at any point. Petitioner did not argue that it had produced any original orders bearing wet signatures, but instead contended that this was not required because the orders in question constituted "electronically transmitted fiscal orders" in that they were sent from the practitioners to petitioner via an "email to fax" system, whereby the practitioner would send the signed order by email to petitioner's fax number. The ALJ rejected this contention, noting that even if petitioner had presented any evidence to support this assertion which it did not petitioner had failed to adequately explain how the orders could be said to have originated from the practitioner's computer, as required to constitute an "electronically transmitted fiscal order." Having reviewed the hearing proof including the orders at issue, it is plain that petitioner failed to comply with the DME policy guidelines and, resultingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that the Medicaid payments pertaining to these orders were not authorized (see Matter of Wegman v New York State Dept. of Health, 229 AD3d at 864-865; Matter of Fast Help Ambulette, Inc. v New York State Dept of Health, 198 AD3d 756, 759-760 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Gignac v Paterson, 70 AD3d 1310, 1311-1312 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 714 [2010]).

Nevertheless, petitioner also challenges the determination based upon a change in the DME policy guidelines. Specifically, petitioner points out that, beginning with the 2021 version of the guidelines, DOH indicated that a "signed written order" could now include a legible, validated facsimile of an original signed order and that, in such case, the original order with the wet signature would no longer be required. While not disputing that this change occurred after the audit period and did not apply to the orders in this case, petitioner claims that the policy change reveals that reliance upon the previous version of the guidelines was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree. In keeping with the goal of Medicaid fraud prevention, both the earlier and the later versions of the guidelines implemented certain safeguards pertaining to the use of faxed orders. While the earlier guidelines achieved that goal by requiring the original order with wet signature, the later guidelines removed that condition but added requirements that the fax be legible and that the provider take certain steps to validate the order and the practitioner's identity. Neither version of the guidelines, in our view, is arbitrary or capricious, and the fact remains that petitioner did not meet the guidelines that were in place during the audit period.

Finally, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that it was unfairly subjected to a "penalty" of full reimbursement of the Medicaid overpayments despite the fact that all of the DME underlying the orders was actually provided to Medicaid recipients. "[P]etitioner's reimbursement of the unauthorized payments is not a sanction or penalty, but merely a remedy in the nature of recoupment" (Matter of A.R.E.B.A. Casriel v Novello, 298 AD2d 134, 135 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; accord Matter of Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. v New York State Off. of Medicaid Inspector Gen. [OMIG], 236 AD3d 1338, 1340 [4th Dept 2025]; see 18 NYCRR 516.3 [a] [1]). This is because "[a] Medicaid provider is liable for reimbursement of any overpayment . . . and an overpayment 'includes any amount not authorized to be paid under the medical assistance program' " (Matter of A.R.E.B.A. Casriel v Novello, 298 AD2d at 135, quoting 18 NYCRR 518.1 [c]; see Matter of Gignac v Paterson, 70 AD3d at 1312). Where, as here, a provider engages in "unacceptable practices" (18 NYCRR 518.1 [c]), defined to include "[u]nacceptable recordkeeping" (18 NYCRR 515.2 [b] [6]), OMIG "may require repayment of the amount determined to have been overpaid" (18 NYCRR 518.1 [b]). Therefore, petitioner's argument that full recoupment is improper because it is shocking to one's sense of fairness is misplaced, as that standard applies in situations where the agency has imposed a penalty (see e.g. Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Rensselaer County Dept. of Social Servs. v McDonald, 244 AD3d 1444, 1450 [3d Dept 2025]). Petitioner's remaining contention concerning a purported due process violation has been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., McShan, Mackey and Ryba, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Former President of local historical society pleads guilty to stealing over $62,000 from the non-profit organization.

2026-07-07T09:00:00.000-04:00

On June 26, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Orleans County District Attorney Susan M. Howard and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that the former president of the Clarendon Historical Society, Melissa M. Ierlan, pleaded guilty to a felony for stealing over $62,000 from the non-profit and will pay $62,000 in restitution. She also previously held positions as the town historian, the code inspector for the Town of Clarendon and the code enforcer for the towns of Byron and Murray.

The Clarendon Historical Society, which receives town funding, operates and manages two buildings as a museum, housing local artifacts and displays.

“Ierlan exploited her role in preserving the town’s rich history to instead enrich herself,” DiNapoli said. “As part of her plea agreement, she now has to return the money she stole. My thanks to D.A. Howard and the New York State Police for their partnership on this case.”

“We will not tolerate the conduct of those who use their position to steal money meant to enrich the community and the lives of others. It is disreputable for any entrusted individual to take advantage of others, especially in this manner. The State Police will continue to assist the Comptroller’s Office and Orleans County District Attorney’s Office in investigating and apprehending anyone willing to engage in dishonest acts,” James said.

A joint investigation by DiNapoli’s office and the New York State Police determined that Ierlan, who had been president and financial controller from 2020-2025, had unchecked control of the society’s accounts, which enabled her to embezzle more than $62,000 from July 2020 to September 2025. Ierlan made numerous personal purchases and payments with the society’s debit card and checkbook, withdrew thousands of dollars in cash in person at the bank branch and at the ATM. She also made payments to her personal credit card with society funds.

Ierlan also fraudulently reimbursed herself for the purchase of a fiberglass ox statue for the “Oxen of Orleans” Public Art Project. Ierlan purchased the ox with her own personal funds and was reimbursed by the Town of Clarendon with federal American Rescue Plan Act funds. She then issued herself a second reimbursement with society funds. Ierlan also used society funds to purchase a shipping container for personal use, deposited society donations into her personal bank account, and transferred society funds to a deceased relative’s estate account of which she was the executor.

Ierlan pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree before Judge Sanford Church in Orleans County Court. Her sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 26.

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 emailing a complaint to 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.

Appellate Division reinstates Plaintiff's retaliation claims and granted motion seeking leave to amend Plaintiff's complaint

2026-07-06T09:00:00.000-04:00

Plaintiff' filed claims alleging retaliation by the Employer in violation of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

Supreme Court granted the Employer's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's unlawful discrimination complaint and denied Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to supplement Plaintiff's Human Rights Laws retaliation allegations.

Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reinstated Plaintiff's retaliation claims and granted Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend Plaintiff's complaint to supplement Plaintiff's Human Rights Laws retaliation allegations.

The Appellate Division, however, held that:

1. Supreme Court properly dismissed [Plaintiff's] Civil Service Law §75-b whistleblower claim because the Plaintiff's "adverse personnel actions" claims of retaliatory action by the Employer were subject to "final and binding" arbitration under the terms of his collective bargaining agreement;

2. Plaintiff's assertion of other retaliation claims under the Labor Law's election-of-remedies provision relied on statutory text that was deleted from the Labor Law by Chapter 684, §1 of the Laws of 2019; and

3. Supreme Court properly dismissed other discrimination claims advanced by Plaintiff because the complaints failed to allege facts giving rise to an inference of unequal treatment.

As to Plaintiff's retaliation claim, the Appellate Division noted that Plaintiff alleged that several days after he objected to a comment about his national origin made by a Deputy Inspector [DI], the DI sought "to replace an existing positive performance evaluation of [Plaintiff] with a negative one", and that after [Plaintiff] filed a formal complaint later that month with the bureau's executive officer about the DI's conduct, Plaintiff was ordered to report to psychological services for a mandatory evaluation, which resulted in the confiscation of his gun and shield.

The Appellate Division observed that such allegations are sufficient to assert "general knowledge by [Plaintiff's Employer] of his protected activity" as well as specific knowledge by, at a minimum, the DI and the passage of only days between Plaintiff's opposition to the DI's comment and the DI's alleged negative evaluation campaign "easily falls within the acceptable temporal range to establish a causal connection". Moreover, said the Appellate Division, the DI's "explicit reference to the bureau's executive officer 'jam[ming] [Plaintiff] up,' if proven, would constitute direct evidence of a retaliatory motive".

In the words of the Appellate Division:

a. "The alleged retaliatory actions outlined [in its decision] were "reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity" under the City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY), §8-107(7). At a minimum, the denial of overtime and charges and specifications were adverse actions under the State Human Rights Law", citing Pastor v August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc., 238 AD3d 645, leave to appeal denied 45 NY3d 903" and

b. "To the extent the proposed amended pleading adds allegations that [Plaintiff's] placement on probation deprived him of opportunities and that he was denied a post at the Office of Management Analysis and Planning as part of the pattern of retaliation against him under the Human Rights Laws, the proposed pleading should be considered the operative complaint in the case".

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

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 3, 2026

2026-07-04T09:00:00.000-04:00

8 Data Optimization Strategies Every Government Security Team Needs Cybersecurity teams in government aren’t short on data — they’re drowning in it. The real challenge is knowing what to keep, what to ignore and how to turn raw telemetry into actionable insight without overwhelming staff or budgets. This paper breaks down eight practical strategies to help agencies prioritize high-value data, reduce alert fatigue and close dangerous visibility gaps across complex environments. 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

What Real-Time Permitting Visibility Looks Like Discover how Stockton uses KPIs and dashboards to drive accountability and efficiency. Listen now

Cable Is Delivering Affordable Connectivity for America The American cable industry has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in broadband infrastructure, improving speed, capacity, and consumer value nationwide. Learn more.

Affordable Connectivity Delivers Greater Opportunity for All Families rely on broadband connectivity for schoolwork, remote work, telehealth, and much more. America's cable industry is delivering budget-friendly solutions to stay connected. Learn more.

Making AI Work for Government This paper explains a "four pillars" approach to civic automation and why it results in more effective and responsible solutions for government. DOWNLOAD

Think Like a Fraudster, Adapt Like an Expert This handbook explains key varieties of identity fraud and the fundamentals of effective identity verification. Most importantly, it gives government leaders insights into the fraudster's mindset so they can create strategies to proactively prevent fraud and adapt to evolving tactics. DOWNLOAD

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

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant 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

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

New Mobile Competition Delivers More for Consumers Cable providers offer competitive broadband and mobile options, giving households more ways to combine services and reduce monthly bills. Learn more.

No More Dead Zones: How Satellite Connectivity and 5G Coverage Beyond the Urban Boundary Is Reshaping Government Operations Join us for a conversation on how satellite-enabled connectivity is changing the way state and local agencies think about resilience, mobility and network design. REGISTER

Why Government Needs Enterprisewide Collaboration This paper explores how enterprisewide collaboration helps agencies break down silos, streamline operations and deliver a more consistent experience for both employees and residents. DOWNLOAD

Better User Experiences, Better Government: Designing the Modern Workplace In this thought leadership paper, explore how the Texas Teachers Retirement System redesigned its workplace to create a more seamless employee experience, improve collaboration and reduce IT complexity. DOWNLOAD

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases audit reports for the New York State local governments and school districts listed below

2026-07-03T09:00:00.000-04:00

On June 2, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued and have been posted on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Village of Unadilla – Disbursements (Otsego County) Village officials did not ensure that disbursements were accurate, properly approved, supported and for appropriate village purposes. Auditors identified one or more deficiencies within 249 disbursements or 76% of the disbursements totaling $70,600 reviewed.

Gorham Fire District – Procurement (Ontario County) District officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services in an economical manner or in accordance with statutory requirements set forth in state law and the district’s procurement policy adopted on June 9, 2025. Of the 77 purchases totaling $446,884 auditors reviewed, district officials did not use competitive methods for 68 purchases totaling $403,377.

Town of Whitestown – Inventories (Oneida County) The superintendent did not properly safeguard and account for diesel fuel, gasoline and motor oil inventories. As a result, fuel and motor oil purchases totaling $172,588 or 85% of the total purchases made from Jan. 1, 2024 through Oct. 31, 2025, could not be accounted for because usage records were either not maintained or were incomplete and unreliable.

Town of Paris – Water and Sewer User Charges (Oneida County) Town officials did not properly manage billing, collection and enforcement activities associated with water and sewer user charges and the town board did not authorize the water rates. The board also did not provide adequate oversight and guidance to the town’s water and sewer clerk, increasing the risk of errors or irregularities that could occur without detection.

Town of Denmark – Claims Auditing (Lewis County) The board did not properly audit and approve all claims before payment. While the board approved a list of claims for payment each month, it did not conduct a thorough audit of individual claims to determine whether they contained adequate supporting documentation, represented actual and necessary expenditures and were for valid town purposes.

Uniondale Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Nassau County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Uniondale Union Free School District’s progress in implementing our recommendations in a prior audit Uniondale Union Free School District – Information Technology (2023M-61), released in October 2023. The audit determined that district officials did not adequately manage nonstudent network user accounts and permissions. Of the five audit recommendations, the district’s director of technology and library media services, technology supervisor, and officials partially implemented three recommendations and did not implement two recommendations. Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing the recommendations related to the sensitive IT control weaknesses that were reported to officials confidentially and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

New York Public Personnel Law

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending July 24, 2026

Selected Webinars focusing on public sector operations being offered during the week ending August 7, 2026.Register now and watch at your leisure!

Claimant's refusal to comply with the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene's COVID-19 vaccination mandate determined to be for personal and secular reasons

Artificial intelligence is now so powerful that AI companies are flagging their own models as cybersecurity threats

Law enforcement personnel complete specialized auto insurance fraud training

Employee's absence from work as the result of being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison deemed to have impeded the Employer’s ability to fulfill its mission

Employees provisionally appointed to their position pursuant to §65 of New York State's Civil Service Law typically so serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority

Selected GovTech Webinars for the week of July 20, 2026

Appellate Division finds that Plaintiffs, alleging violations State and Federal Civil Rights Law, failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action to recover damages

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 17, 2026

New York State's Comptroller posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and programs on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller announces the New York State Tax Cap will remain at 2% for 2027

Challenging New York City’s congestion-pricing program for vehicles entering its business district in Midtown and Lower Manhattan

Responding to a New York State Freedom of Information Law request

New York State's Comptroller releases taxpayer migration dashboard

Workers' Comp 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

More information

Having trouble?

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 10, 2026

Audits of New York State local governments and New York public schools posted on the Internet

New York State government digital summit meeting scheduled

New York Digital Government SummitDate: September 22, 2026Location: Albany Capital Center

Supplemental Military Leave Benefits

Police officer recovers damages for psychological and emotional injuries sustained while on duty pursuant to New York State's "Son of Sam Law"

The Appellate Division confirmed the administrative determination of the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General made in the course of the Inspector General's seeking reimbursement for certain Medicaid payments made to petitioner

Former President of local historical society pleads guilty to stealing over $62,000 from the non-profit organization.

Appellate Division reinstates Plaintiff's retaliation claims and granted motion seeking leave to amend Plaintiff's complaint

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 3, 2026

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases audit reports for the New York State local governments and school districts listed below

Selected Webinars focusing on public sector operations being offered during the week ending August 7, 2026.

Register now and watch at your leisure!

New York Digital Government Summit
Date: September 22, 2026
Location: Albany Capital Center