New York Public Personnel Law

2026-10-23T09:00:00.000-04:00

Thursday, January 21, 2027
New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 6th Ave, New York, NY

Take advantage of early bird savings for the 2027 Annual Conference! Register by November 2, 2026, to save $100 on your general registration fee or take advantage of the Early Bird All Access Pass for just $595.

The All Access Pass gives you access to the Environmental and Energy Law Section programming, the inaugural NYSBA Tech Summit, and additional Section events of your choosing—offering even more opportunities for education, innovation, and networking.

Don’t miss your chance to save and make the most of your Annual Conference experience. Register today before early bird pricing ends!

Thursday, January 21, 2027

Local and State Government Law Section MCLE Program 8:45 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.

Reserve Your Room Today

Book Hotel

Book your room by January 4, 2027, to receive the discounted group rate.

Special Events

NYSBA Tech Summit
Tuesday, January 19 - Thursday, January 21

Wellness and Self-Care Expo
Tuesday, January 19 - Friday, January 22

Presidential Summit: Civics Convocation
Wednesday, January 20 | 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Constance Baker Motley Symposium
Wednesday, January 20 | 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.

President's Reception: A Celebration of Leadership
Wednesday, January 20 | 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Annual Meeting of the Association
Friday, January 22 | 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

This notice was Emailed to NYPER by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street Albany, NY, 12207, USA

Posted Pro Bono by New York Public Personnel Law, a Law Blog.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint granted on showing that Plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of claim

2026-10-22T09:00:00.000-04:00

The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Westchester County Local #860, Town of Eastchester Unit #9227 and the Town of Eastchester had entered into a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] which provided, among other things, that "seniority shall be the determining factor for selection to a vacant position where all other factors are equal".

The Town created a new general foreman position, for which two applicants, A and B, had applied. The Town adopted a resolution appointing B to the position. CSEA, on behalf of B, filed a grievance pursuant to the terms of the relevant CBA and ultimately the parties proceeded to non-binding arbitration in accordance with terms set out in the CBA.

The arbitrator issued an award in favor of CSEA and A [Plaintiffs], which award was rejected by the Town's Board and B [Defendants].

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action against the Defendants seeking damages for breach of contract and for related injunctive and declaratory relief. After joinder of issue, Defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint. Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs appeal the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, citing Dannemann v Town of E. Hampton Dept. of Land Acquisition & Mgt., 221 AD3d 960, and other decisions and Town Law §65[3]), observed that "The filing of a notice of claim is . . . a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town". Further, the Appellate Division noted that "Under Town Law §65(3), no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued", pointing out that "[I]n contrast to other notice statutes, Town Law §65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements'".

Observing that Plaintiffs had failed to file a notice of claim, and, contrary to the Plaintiffs' contention, the Appellate Division pointed out that "an exception to the Town Law §65(3) notice of claim requirement is only applicable where a plaintiff has pleaded an ongoing or continuing violation, which the complaint in the present action did not."

As Plaintiffs sought both the recovery of damages and equitable relief, the Appellate Division opined that "the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of this action" and concluded that Supreme Court had properly granted that branch of Defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint".

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

Appointing authority may disregard the resignation of an employee in the classified service served with Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary charges

2026-10-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion for leave to renew the denial of his 2017 petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial annulment of the City of New York et al's [Respondents] determinations terminating Petitioner's employment at the Administration for Children's Services and disqualifying him from employment with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. In addition, Supreme Court imposed sanctions on the Petitioner.

Petitioner appealed the instant decision of the Supreme Court, which ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court "providently exercised its discretion in denying [Petitioner's] motion to renew — his fourth — because he did not present any new evidence that would change the prior determination to dismiss the article 78 petition", citing Henry v Peguero, 72 AD3d 600, appeal dismissed, 15 NY3d 820.

Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention that a Kings County Supreme Court issued an order in an April 2025 ruling indicating that Petitioner "resigned from his position rather than being terminated" did not constitute new evidence, citing LFR Collections LLC v Blan Law Offs., 117 AD3d 486 and noting that the Appellate Division had affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's petition then at issue, opining that "the Administration for Children's Services properly elected to disregard [Petitioner's] resignation and prosecute the charges of misconduct against him under 4 NYCRR 5.3(b)", citing Matter of Patterson v City of New York*, 173 AD3d 540.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "The finding by the Kings County Supreme Court that [Petitioner] resigned therefore does not change the outcome in any of the prior decisions in this case", again citing LFR Collections, 117 AD3d at 487.

*4 NYCRR 5.3(b), in relevant part, provides "Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation."

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

Requesting the reconsideration of an administrative decision does not extend the running of the statute of limitations to appeal that decision

2026-10-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, Supreme Court granted the Employer's [Defendant] motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

The Appellate Division, noting that:

1. Actions alleging discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL must be commenced within three years after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment; and

2. An employment discrimination claim accrues on the date that an adverse employment determination is made and communicated to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff failing to establish his entitlement to a disabled veteran's credit started the running of the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiff's written request seeking administrative reconsideration of Defendant's decision to withdraw the Plaintiff's disabled veteran's credit did not toll the statute of limitations, nor did it allow the Plaintiff to circumvent the statute of limitations by demanding that the Defendant change its determination and thereafter commencing an action when that demand was refused. Indeed, the Appellate Division's decision points out the Plaintiff commenced the instant action almost five years after Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he was ineligible for a disabled veteran's credit.

In the words of the Appellate Division: "Supreme Court properly granted the [Defendant's] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and dismissed Plaintiff's appeal of the Supreme Court's decision.

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

Selected New York State Education Law §§306 or 310 administrative decisions by New York State's Commissioner of Education

2026-10-19T09:00:00.000-04:00

Decision No. 18,854 - Application for the removal of a trustee of the Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Middletown. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,855 - Application for the removal of trustees of the Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of Middletown. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,860 - Appeal from action of the Board of Education of the Pine Valley Central School District regarding financial practices. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,861 - Appeal of action of the Board of Education of the Kenmore-Tonawanda Union Free School District regarding a personnel matter. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 16, 2026

2026-10-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

As of May 2026, the more than 1.9 million New York students participated in the school lunch program are at risk According to a report prepared by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, recent federal changes (Public Law 119-21) in 2025 restricts eligibility to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] and Medicaid MORE

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

Modernize Government Operations Evaluate AI infrastructure needs with NVIDIA RTX PRO™ 4500 Blackwell Workstation Edition. Learn More

Protecting Yourself and Your Team: Coverage Essentials for Businesses The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its monthly webinar series for employers and human resources (HR) representatives and there is still time to register for this Thursday, October 22, 2026 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. free session Register here

Modernize Government Operations Evaluate AI infrastructure needs with NVIDIA RTX PRO™ 4500 Blackwell Workstation Edition. Learn More

A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness

2026-10-16T09:00:00.000-04:00

The New York State Division of Human Rights [Division] initiated this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law §298 to enforce a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner's determination adopted the recommendation and findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, finding that the Respondents unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of her sex, inter alia, and awarded her compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish and attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $24,640.50, and assessed a civil fine and penalty against the Respondents in the principal sum of $50,000.

The Appellate Division granted Division's petition, without costs or disbursements, and confirmed the Division's determination finding that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex. The Court directed the Respondent to pay the Plaintiff compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, and $24,640.50 for attorneys' fees, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, and to pay the New York State Division of Human Rights the principal sum of $50,000, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, as a civil fine and penalty.

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

In the Matter of New York State Division of Human Rights, petitioner
v

Boston Market Corporation, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Judicial Department

Decided on October 14, 2026

2025-01314, (Index No. 9158/24)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Janice A. Taylor

Laurence L. Love, JJ.

Melissa Franco, Bronx, NY (Abbey J. Marr of counsel), for petitioner.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated February 24, 2023. The determination adopted the recommendation and findings of an administrative law judge dated April 28, 2022, made after a hearing, finding that the respondents Boston Market Corporation and Nicholas Foreman unlawfully discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex, inter alia, awarded her compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish and attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $24,640.50, and assessed a civil fine and penalty against the respondents Boston Market Corporation and Nicholas Foreman in the principal sum of $50,000.

ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the portion of the determination finding that the respondent Boston Market Corporation unlawfully discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex and awarding her compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish and attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $24,640.50, and assessing a civil fine and penalty against the respondent Boston Market Corporation in the principal sum of $50,000 is confirmed, the determination is otherwise annulled, the petition is otherwise denied, the proceeding is otherwise dismissed, and the respondent Boston Market Corporation is directed to pay the complainant compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, and $24,640.50 for attorneys' fees, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, and to pay the New York State Division of Human Rights the principal sum of $50,000, plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from February 24, 2023, as a civil fine and penalty.

The complainant filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the SDHR) against the respondents, Boston Market Corporation (hereinafter Boston Market) and Nicholas Foreman, alleging that they subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex. After a public hearing, an administrative law judge made a recommendation and findings that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, awarded her compensatory damages in the principal sum of $20,000 for mental anguish and attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $24,640.50, and assessed a civil fine and penalty against the respondents in the principal sum of $10,000. Thereafter, the Commissioner of the SDHR (hereinafter the Commissioner), in a determination dated February 24, 2023, adopted the liability finding and the award for attorneys' fees of the administrative law judge, but awarded the complainant compensatory damages in the principal sum of $75,000 for mental anguish and assessed a civil fine and penalty against the respondents in the principal sum of $50,000. The SDHR subsequently commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce the determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).

Initially, the Supreme Court erred in transferring so much of the proceeding as sought enforcement against Foreman to this Court pursuant to Executive Law § 298. Foreman defaulted in answering the complaint, and the determination against him was made following a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297(4)(b) (see Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Village Plaza Family Rest., Inc., 59 AD3d 1038, 1038; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Atlantic City Sub Shop, 27 AD3d 853, 854). Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, this Court will decide so much of the proceeding as sought enforcement against Foreman on the merits (see Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings, 242 AD3d 998, 1000; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Village Plaza Family Rest., Inc., 59 AD3d at 1038).

An enforcement proceeding initiated by the SDHR raises the issue of whether its determination was supported by sufficient evidence in the record (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Elite Dental Care, P.C., 237 AD3d 835, 836; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Boro Park Senior Living Community, LLC, 213 AD3d 671, 672). "The scope of judicial review under the Human Rights Law is extremely narrow and is confined to the consideration of whether the determination of the SDHR is supported by substantial evidence in the record" (Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Roadtec, Inc., 167 AD3d 898, 899). "Substantial evidence means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Town of Hempstead v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 215 AD3d 973, 976). "[C]ourts may not weigh the evidence or reject [SDHR's] choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists" (Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d at 331 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of CUNY-Hostos Community Coll. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69, 75).

Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's determination that Boston Market subjected the complainant to a hostile work environment based on her sex (see Executive Law § 296[1][h]; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Adler, 229 AD3d 555, 556; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Team Taco Mexico, Corp., 140 AD3d 965, 966). However, Foreman may not be held individually liable for the damages awarded by the Commissioner (see Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 36 NY3d 450, 457-458; Matter of Hilal v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 57 AD3d 898, 899). Accordingly, so much of the petition as sought enforcement against Foreman must be denied.

The award of compensatory damages for mental anguish is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by substantial evidence, and comparable to other awards for similar injuries (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Steve's Pier One, Inc., 123 AD3d 728, 729; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Koch, 60 AD3d 777, 777).

A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Head Injury Assn., Inc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD3d 1335, 1338; Matter of Thomas v Town of Southeast, N.Y., 168 AD3d 955, 957). Here, we perceive no basis for disturbing the civil fine and penalty assessed (see Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Boro Park Senior Living Community, LLC, 213 AD3d at 673; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Team Taco Mexico, Corp., 140 AD3d at 967).

The amount of the attorneys' fees awarded to the complainant was reasonable (see Executive Law § 297[10]).

DUFFY, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

The obligations of a hearing officer conducting a New York State Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing

2026-10-16T05:18:00.000-04:00

An employee [Petitioner] of the Town was working as a systems administrator for the Town overseeing the transition to a new telephone system for its offices. It was subsequently discovered that certain Town office telephones had been enabled to record the user's conversation in contravention of a Town Board resolution prohibiting such recording except for calls made to "the Police Department for purposes of police investigations."

Following an investigation, a disciplinary charge was filed against Petitioner alleging three specifications of misconduct and incompetence. After a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer sustained the charge and recommended the Petitioner's termination. The Town adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed and terminated Petitioner. Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order to annul his termination and directing his reinstatement to his former position, with back pay and benefits.

The Appellate Division observed that:

1. "Pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(1), a civil service employee shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges";

2. "The employer bears the burden of proving misconduct or incompetency and any determination of same 'must be based on the written charges' and specific factual findings;

3. A court's review of that determination is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the determination;

4. A court cannot conduct such a review unless the hearing officer makes sufficiently specific factual findings to identify the basis for the determination; and

5. A court may not supply factual findings that are absent and in the instant hearing the Hearing Officer did not provide the requisite specificity.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division annulled the Town's dismissal of the Petitioner and remitted the matter to the Town for further proceedings, noting that it was undisputed hearing evidence reflected that Petitioner was the contact person with the telephone vendor selected for the project, in setting up the Town's new telephone system nor was there any question that telephone calls to nonpolice extensions — including calls to the town supervisor, the town supervisor's confidential secretary and the town attorney — were being recorded despite the Town's resolution prohibiting such recordings.

The Appellate Division, however, noted that there were sharp factual disputes regarding Petitioner's alleged culpability, if any, that the Hearing Officer needed to resolve. Although the Hearing Officer stated generally that he found the testimony of Town's witnesses more credible than that of Petitioner and the Vendor's employee, he did not make sufficient factual findings to permit meaningful review by the Court as the Hearing Officer:

1. Failed to discuss each misconduct specification separately; and

2. Never stated the factual findings he relied upon to establish each finding of guilt.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "This failure was particularly glaring when distinguishing between intentional and negligent misconduct, as the Hearing Officer never determined when, how or why telephone calls were improperly recorded and left doubt as to whether he faulted [Petitioner] for intentionally disregarding the [Town's] resolution when the telephone system was set up, for later advising the town supervisor how to turn recording on in violation of that resolution, or for negligently failing to monitor the telephone system in general."

The Appellate Division opined that the "absence of adequate findings further obscured whether the Hearing Officer inappropriately shifted the burden of proof from [the Town] to [the Petitioner]; he cursorily acknowledged that [the Town] bore the burden of proof but then faulted [the Employee] for not documenting his engagement with the [Vendor] or the town supervisor's inquiry about how to activate recording on certain extensions."

Absent specific factual findings as to what occurred and an explanation of the basis for sustaining each specification, the Appellate Division said it "could not determine whether substantial evidence supports the [§75 disciplinary] determination".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that the Town's determination "must be annulled and the matter remitted for the development of appropriate findings", and, in order to assist the Hearing Officer in rendering an adequate decision upon remittal, Appellate Division "briefly addressed" the Petitioner's remaining arguments to clarify the applicable legal principles, noting:

a. The respondent bears the burden to establish the charged misconduct under Civil Service Law §75; and

b. A Hearing Officer should also be mindful that "seriously controverted" hearsay evidence ... cannot constitute substantial evidence for the determination by itself".

The Appellate Division annulled the Town's determination and remitted the matter to the Town "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision".

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

Proposed amendments to New York State's Ethics Training Requirements for Lobbyists and Clients

2026-10-15T09:01:00.000-04:00

PROPOSED RULE MAKING

New York State Ethics Training

Requirements for Lobbyists and Clients

NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

Proposed Action: Amendment of Part 943 of Title 19 NYCRR

Statutory authority: Legislative Law, section 1-d(h) and (i)

Subject: Amendments to the Ethics training requirements for Lobbyists and Clients.

Purpose: Implement the statutory amendments included in Part U of Chapter 55 of the Laws of 2026 relating to ethics training for lobbyists and clients and the imposition of late fees for failing to complete such training within the required time.

Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Megan Mutolo, Esq., Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government, 540 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207, (518) 486-7593

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Same as above.

Public comment will be received until: 60 days after publication of this notice.

The federal Portal-to-Portal Act does not bar the payment of compensation when the employee is prevented from clocking in and beginning to work by the employer

2026-10-15T09:00:00.000-04:00

Below is the introductory statement to the instant decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, setting out the genesis of this litigation.

"This case requires us* to consider whether the Portal-to-Portal Act bars an employee’s claim for compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for time spent waiting for work to begin when an employer requires the employee to report for work at a specific time but the employee is prevented from clocking in and beginning to work for reasons attributable to the employer.

[*Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.]

"Plaintiff-Appellant Sandra Santos appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, J.) dismissing her claims against Defendant-Appellee Lidl US, LLC (“Lidl”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”).

"Santos alleges that Lidl required her and similarly situated employees to report to work fifteen minutes before the listed start time of their store opening shifts, and that opening managers regularly didn’t arrive until the listed start time. Because employees couldn’t clock in for work until they accessed the time clock machines located inside stores, on the days when managers were not there to let them in, the employees didn’t get paid for time spent waiting for managers to grant them entry. As relevant here, Santos seeks compensation for that unpaid waiting time.

"The district court dismissed Santos’s time-shaving claims as barred by the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, which generally shields employers from FLSA liability for time workers spend on activities “preliminary” or “postliminary” to the principal activities they are employed to perform.

"On appeal, Santos argues that the district court overlooked that waiting time can be compensable when an employer engages an employee to wait for work. We agree. Waiting time is compensable under the FLSA when an employer requires an employee to report to the worksite at a certain time to be ready to work and, for reasons beyond the employee’s control, there is no work to be done. 29 C.F.R. § 790.7(h)."

The Court of Appeals then vacated the dismissal of Santos’s FLSA and NYLL time-shaving claims by the Federal District Court and remanded the matter to the District Court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion", Judge Sullivan dissenting in a separate opinion.

Click HERE to access the majority and dissenting opinions in this action posted on the Internet.

Recent disciplinary hearing decisions by New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing's Administrative Law Judges

2026-10-14T09:00:00.000-04:00

Below are summaries of two recent disciplinary hearings conducted New York City Administrative Law Judges serving with the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing [OATH].

1. OATH Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Julia Davis recommended the termination of the employment of a Behavioral Health Associate [Respondent] who was charged with (a) gross misconduct [striking a patient in the face] and (b) excessive absenteeism.

Respondent had attempted to stop a patient from banging on the hallway window of a nurses’ station, and surveillance video showed Respondent striking the patient twice in the face. Respondent denied striking the patient, arguing that he acted in self-defense, which the ALJ found was belied by the video evidence showing the contrary.

In assessing the penalty to recommend to the Appointing Authority, Judge Davis opined that Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history was outweighed by the seriousness of Respondent's misconduct and his inability to take responsibility for his actions.

Although the ALJ found that Appointing Authority's evidence was insufficient to sustain the excessive absenteeism charge, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respondent be terminated from his employment based on her finding the Respondent guilty of gross misconduct in striking the patient twice.

Click HERE to access Judge Davis' findings and findings and recommendation with respect to the penalty to be imposed on Respondent.

2. ALJ Christine Stecura recommended the termination of the employment of an Eligibility Specialist [Respondent] found guilty of being absent from work without authorization [AWOL].

The Appointing Authority [Petitioner] had charged the Respondent with being AWOL commencing in January 2025. Respondent had initially requested a medical leave of absence for a six-week period, which Petitioner denied due to a lack of supporting documentation. The ALJ found that Petitioner had established that Respondent was absent from work without approval for over 14 months and that such absence was excessive and subject to disciplinary action.

The ALJ also found that Respondent had failed to provide corroborating lay, medical, or expert testimony, or supporting medical documentation, to demonstrate any alleged current and ongoing disability.

Click HERE to access Judge Stecura's findings and recommendation with respect to the penalty to be imposed on Respondent.

Appellate Division holds that the body that ruled on disciplinary action taken against an employee pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(2) lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter

2026-10-13T09:00:00.000-04:00

The Civil Service Law §75 Disciplinary Hearing Officer [HO] found the Plaintiff bringing this CPLR Article 78 action guilty of misconduct and incompetence and recommend Plaintiff's termination from her employment with City of Rochester Police Accountability Board [Board]. The Board adopted the HO's findings and recommendation.

Plaintiff initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 action:

1. Alleging the disciplinary action taken against her failed to comply with provisions set out in Civil Service Law §75(2) as the Board, which (a) adopted the HO's findings concerning the disciplinary charges served on Plaintiff and (b) accepted the HO's recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed, dismissal of Plaintiff from her position, lacked jurisdiction to discipline her; and

2. Alleging the City's administrative responses to her requests for documents pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] provided inadequate and contained redacted materials without proper justification.

With respect to Plaintiff's argument addressing the Board's alleged lack of jurisdiction as a result of a failure to comply with the relevant provisions of §75, the Appellate Division said it agreed with Plaintiff's arguments, noting that a disciplinary hearing on §75 charges preferred against an employee "shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose". In the words of the Appellate Division, in the absence of "a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing, 'the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee'".

As to Plaintiff's claims that "... a number of her FOIL requests were improperly denied and that the City provided inadequate responses and redacted materials without proper justification", the Appellate Division noted that "There is a presumption that government documents are available for inspection, and the burden rests on the agency resisting disclosure to demonstrate that they are exempt by articulating a particularized and specific justification".

With respect to the disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff, the Appellate Division unanimously annulled the Board's disciplinary decision "on the law without costs to the extent that it terminated petitioner from her employment" and granted Plaintiff's petition "to the extent that [Petitioner] is reinstated to her position with back pay, less any unemployment benefits received", and remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with its decision.

With respect to Plaintiff's concerns with the City's response to her FOIL requests, the Appellate Division said that "Because the record before [it] is insufficient to enable [the Court] to determine whether a legitimate basis existed for the City's responses to those portions of [Plaintiff's] requests, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to Supreme Court for in camera review of the requested FOIL items and a determination as to the merits of Petitioner's FOIL claims.

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 9, 2026

2026-10-10T06:30:00.000-04:00

Recent sexual harassment court decisions Posted on the Internet by Labor and Employment Daily. Click HERE to access this listing.

Preparing for Medicaid's New Redetermination Mandates This paper explores practical strategies for preparing for more frequent eligibility reviews, strengthening constituent communications and reducing administrative burden without sacrificing the beneficiary experience. DOWNLOAD

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

What Drives Effective Government Leaders? Go beyond the headlines and hear candid conversations with Governing’s Public Officials of the Year. Listen to The Common Thread

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

As more colleges shut down, communities are looking to convert their campuses into housing. Zoning, costs and neighborhood opposition can make that harder than it sounds. Read More

A Guide to AI Recruitment Technology for Public Sector Hiring Learn how AI-assisted recruiting can help agencies identify qualified candidates sooner, reduce sourcing work and manage the compliance and security considerations that come with hiring technology. DOWNLOAD

Empowering Staff in the Field This guide explains how mobile-first augmented field operations systems infuse artificial intelligence, automation and real-time information into every stage of fieldwork. DOWNLOAD

5 Public Safety Trends for 2026 From AI-powered situational awareness to integrated real-time crime centers, this paper reveals how agencies can modernize systems to keep pace with escalating risks. DOWNLOAD

New York's State Comptroller post State Agency Audits on the Internet

2026-10-09T13:00:00.000-04:00

On October 9, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following State Government Accountability audits were released.

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

Office of Information Technology Services – Inventory Controls (Follow-Up) (2026-F-3)
The Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) is responsible for keeping an accurate inventory of hardware and software for the 50 state entities it fully supports. ITS also provides partial support to 38 state entities and operates 117 stockrooms statewide. A prior audit, issued in February 2025, found that ITS does not have the necessary controls in place to accurately and completely account for all workstations and other hardware assets for which it is responsible. Auditors found significant weaknesses related to inaccurate inventory, missing devices, and a lack of security over equipment and the information stored on devices at ITS stockrooms. ITS has made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing all eight of the initial report’s recommendations.

State Education Department – Access to Preschool Special Education Services (Follow-Up) 2026-F-5
Providing special education programs and services at an early age helps prepare a child with a disability to enter school ready to learn. Preschool special education is overseen by the State Education Department’s (SED) Office of Special Education, which works to promote educational equity and excellence for students with disabilities. A prior audit, issued in December 2024, found that preschool special education students may not be receiving all required services within required time frames, or, in some cases, may not be receiving them at all, due to waitlists maintained by local school districts resulting from a shortage of providers. SED made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, three were implemented and four were partially implemented.

Department of Environmental Conservation – Oversight of Dam Safety (Follow-Up) 2026-F-9
To safeguard against loss of life and property due to flooding and dam failures, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) manages a program that involves safety inspections, permitting, and regulatory compliance for approximately 6,500 dams throughout the state. A prior audit, issued in February 2025, identified areas where DEC can make improvements in oversight and enforcement of compliance with the state’s dam safety regulations, including Emergency Plans, Engineering Assessments, and Annual Certifications. DEC made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, partially implementing the one recommendation.

State University of New York – Oversight of the Educational Opportunity Program (Follow-Up) (2026-F-8)
The State University of New York (SUNY) operates the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), which provides access, support, and financial aid for disadvantaged students. A prior audit, issued in March 2025, found that while SUNY was monitoring EOP and campuses were generally using the funds for allowed purposes, there were some unallowable or insufficiently supported transactions and a lack of documentation showing that certain counseling services were provided to students. SUNY made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing both of the initial report’s recommendations.

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services and Office of Information Technology Services – Next Generation 911 Services (Follow-Up) (2026-F-14)
Next Generation 911 (NG911) is an upgrade to New York’s emergency communications system that transitions to a digital internet protocol-based network, which is faster and more resilient than the original analog infrastructure. The complex transition requires coordination among a variety of emergency communications, public safety, legislative, and governing entities. A prior audit, issued in June 2025, found that the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) was not effectively overseeing the development and implementation of the transition to NG911. Auditors also identified weaknesses in technical controls for systems supporting the Street and Address Maintenance program managed by the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS). DHSES and ITS made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing all three of the initial audit report's recommendations.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Columbia County Arc d.b.a. The Starting Place: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-16)
NYSARC, Inc. Columbia County Chapter d.b.a. The Starting Place (TSP), a not-for-profit special education provider located in Hudson, is authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Preschool Special Class and full-day Preschool Integrated Special Class to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 4 years (referred to as the SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, TSP reported approximately $3.8 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $271,842 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – The Children’s Home of Kingston: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-7)
The Children’s Home of Kingston (CHK), a not-for-profit special education provider located in Kingston, is authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide School-Age Special Class services to children with disabilities ages 8 to 21 years (referred to as the SED cost-based program). For the audit scope, CHK reported approximately $6,289,798 in reimbursable costs for the SED cost-based program. Auditors identified $670,549 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – The Guild for Exceptional Children, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-35)
The Guild for Exceptional Children, Inc. (GEC) is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide Special Class (over 2.5 hours per day) and Integrated Special Class (over 2.5 hours per day) education services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as the SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, GEC reported approximately $17.2 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $258,712 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

###

New York State Division of Human Rights Hearing and Settlement Procedures

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

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

NOTICE OF ADOPTION - I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-A Filing No. 876 Filing Date: 2026-09-17 Effective Date: 2026-10-07.

Action taken: Amendment of sections 465.7, 465.10, 465.11, 465.12, 465.15, 465.16 and 465.17 of Title 9 NYCRR. Statutory authority: Executive Law, section 295(5).

Pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Administrative Procedure Act, notice is hereby given of the following action:

Subject: Hearing and settlement procedures.

Purpose: To revise hearing and settlement procedures to reflect current practice and promote equitable efficiency.

Text or summary was published in the June 17, 2026 issue of the Register, I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-P.

Final rule as compared with last published rule:

No changes. Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jeffrey Shalke, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-3977, email: rulemaking@dhr.ny.gov

Initial Review of Rule:

As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2031, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

Assessment of Public Comment:

A Notice of Rule Making was published in the State Register on June 17, 2026. The Division of Human Rights (Division) received one (1) comment associated with the rule making during the public comment period. The comment noted two concerns regarding the proposed amendments, which are summarized below. The Division’s response is provided for each concern.

Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not create a meaningful discovery dispute resolution process. Litigants are still required to commence a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas or compel disclosure.

Response: Special proceedings in New York State Supreme Court are not the sole option for enforcing subpoenas or compelling disclosure in a Division action. New York Executive Law §295(7) provides the Division NYS Register/October 7, 2026 Rule Making Activities 13 with the general authority to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, and require the production of documents. More specifically, under 9 NYCRR §465.12(f)(5) and (8), the administrative law judge has the power to call witnesses and direct the production of documents/evidentiary matters at hearing. Additionally, under 9 NYCRR §465.12(f)(1) the administrative law judge has authority to rule upon all motions and objections, including those involving discovery.

Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not expressly state that Division settlements and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law.

Response: After consideration, the Division determined it is not necessary to expressly state in the amended regulations that Division settlements and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. All orders and awards issued or approved by the Commissioner will continue to conform to precedential case law.

New York State's judiciary enjoy the privilege of confidentiality of judicial deliberations by insulating the judiciary the State's Freedom of Information Law

2026-10-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court, on remittal of the underlying decision by Court of Appeals to it, granted Plaintiff's petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to compel production, pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), of 22 records at issue that New York State's Office of Court Administration [OCA] had determined were exempt from disclosure because they consisted of encompass legal guidance on statutory and decisional law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

OCA's Counsel's Office declined to honor FOIL requests involving documents it had sent to judges of New York States Unified Court System (UCS) that encompass legal guidance on statutory and decisional law. In its argument before the Court of Appeals OCA pointed to a memorandum that had become publicly available interpreting the instant Appellate Division's decision in Crawford v Ally, 197 AD3d 27 (the Crawford Memorandum), and OCA had unsuccessfully argued, prior to conducting a search, that all similar memoranda would be categorically privileged, and therefore exempt from FOIL "by virtue of Counsel's Office's in-house relationship with UCS as its organizational client".

On remittal, OCA submitted 22 documents, similar to the Crawford Memorandum, for in camera review. Supreme Court held that they were not privileged and ordered them disclosed.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "On this record OCA has not demonstrated the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Counsel's Office and all UCS judges that would protect the submitted documents. OCA has provided no additional evidence or authority supporting its organizational client theory. Contrary to OCA's contention, the 22 documents alone do not prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship any more than did the Crawford Memorandum, which was before the Court of Appeals when it rejected OCA's privilege claim". In addition, citing Matter of NYCLU, 45 NY3d at 234, the Appellate Division observed that the OCA has not met its burden of demonstrating the privilege applies by reason of an "attorney-client relationship between Counsel's Office and all UCS judges acting in the acting in their deliberative capacities, beyond what was present in the prior record.

The Appellate Division observed that "OCA's policy arguments conflate attorney-client confidentiality with the distinct but equally important confidentiality of judicial deliberations, which flows not from an attorney-client relationship, but from a unique judicial privilege which the legislature recognized by removing the judiciary from FOIL's reach", citing Public Officers Law §§86[1], [c] and Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Empire State Dev. Corp., 98 NY2d 359", nor may OCA may not revive its arguments "relying on FOIL's inter- and intra-agency exemption, which OCA abandoned before the Court of Appeals".

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

Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition filed after the four-month statute of limitations expired dismissed

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

Plaintiff in this action submitted a motion to Supreme Court seeking to renew his CPLR Article 78 action challenging the City University of New York's [CCNY] decision to terminated Petitioner from his position with CCNY. Supreme Court granted CCNY's cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Article 78 action, rejecting Plaintiff's efforts have CCNY's decision to terminate Plaintiff from his position with CCNY annulled.

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court decision, which ruling the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

The Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff's [1] challenging his termination following an investigation into harassment allegations made against him and [2] challenging CUNY's decision not to interview him for another position with CCNY were time-barred as "Petitioner brought the proceeding well outside the four-month statute of limitations".

The Appellate Division then opined that "Even if the petition were timely, due process claims stemming from his termination are barred by the doctrine of res judicata" as Petitioner had already litigated the merits of such claims in federal court.

Turning to CCNY's decision not to interview Plaintiff for another position with CCNY in 2022, the Appellate Division found that action by CCNY "was neither arbitrary nor capricious".

Noting that the Court had also considered other arguments advanced by Petitioner, said that it had "found them to be unavailing".

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

Workers' Comp 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

2026-10-06T14:30:00.000-04:00

Workers' Compensation Board 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues on October 7, 2026.

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

On the dates listed below, the Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present on the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. This presentation 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.

Important: When you register, you will automatically receive a confirmation email that includes a calendar invite. Be sure to add the invite to your calendar so you have a reminder! If you don’t receive the confirmation email in your inbox, please check your junk or spam folder.

Register here

Wednesday, October 7, 2026
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday, November 3, 2026
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday, December 1, 2026
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

More information

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

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

Having trouble?

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

Selected Education Law §§306 or 310 administrative appeals recently adjudicated by New York State's Commissioner of Education, Dr. Betty A. Rosa

2026-10-06T09:00:00.000-04:00

Decision No. 18,844 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of the School District's "District Registrar, Attendance Officer and Director of Food and Nutrition Services". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,845 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of a Member of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,846 - Petitioner sought the removal of a Trustee from the School District's Board of Education. The Petitioner's application was denied as untimely. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown, See 8 NYCRR 275.16. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision.

Decision No. 18,848 - Appeal of Petitioner from certain actions taken by the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,850 - Consolidated Applications submitted by two Petitioners. One Petitioner sought the removal of the Superintendent of the School District and the second Petitioner sought the removal of the School Board's President and Trustee of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the decisions of the Commissioner posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,851 - Appeal of Petitioners on behalf of their children from a decision of the Board of Education concerning the School District's boundary. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases State Government Accountability audits

2026-10-05T09:15:00.000-04:00

On October 2, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the State Government Accountability, Local government and School audits audits listed below were posted on the Internet

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

New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services – Actions to Reduce Carbon Emissions From City Government Operations (2023-N-7)
In 2019, the New York City Council passed the Climate Mobilization Act, including Local Law 97, which requires New York City government operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by fiscal year 2025 and 50% by fiscal year 2030, relative to such emissions for fiscal year 2006. Auditors found that the city did not achieve the emissions reductions or energy efficiency improvements for 2025. While the city acknowledged that it was behind schedule due to “unforeseen and unprecedented challenges over the past years,” other factors such as missing documentation, missed reporting deadlines, inconsistent metrics and unclear guidance and communication from the Department of Citywide Administrative Services to agencies it was to collaborate with on emissions reductions also contributed to delays with achieving Climate Mobilization Act goals.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Electronic Transmitter Identification Numbers (2024-S-34)
An electronic transmitter identification number (ETIN) is a unique identifier used to submit fee-for-service claims to Medicaid. Per Medicaid policy, all entities that submit claims to Medicaid must have an active, certified ETIN affiliation on file before submitting claims. Auditors found that DOH has not implemented adequate controls to ensure that ETIN affiliations meet requirements. As a result, the Department of Health’s Medicaid claim processing and payment system processed nearly 10.8 million claims submitted with 783 ETINs that were not affiliated with the billing providers on the date of service. The control deficiencies identified reduce visibility into the claim submission process, creating uncertainty about whether claim submitters who may have been previously authorized are still authorized to submit claims.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Selected Aspects of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Small Business Development Program (2023-S-47)
In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched its Small Business Development Program (SBDP) to help eligible small business construction firms develop and grow by establishing business relationships with the MTA. SBDP includes the state-funded Small Business Mentoring Program (Mentoring Program) and the federally funded Small Business Federal Program. Auditors found an overall lack of formal written procedures for many aspects of SBDP, including the application and procurement processes, the identification of bidders and the Mentoring Program’s training and outreach. Auditors found errors or inconsistencies in the documents SBDP uses to select which contractors would be provided with an opportunity to bid on individual contracts. As a result, auditors found eligible contractors that should have been selected to bid but were not.

Division of Criminal Justice Services – Oversight of Adult Probation Services (2023-S-46)
The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) oversees and funds 58 probation departments across the state, covering 57 counties and New York City. It is responsible for promoting practices that improve public safety, hold probationers accountable, and reduce recidivism. Auditors found that DCJS should increase its monitoring and oversight to enhance the probation supervision practices provided by counties and maximize public safety for all state residents and provide guidance that establishes a balance between the counties expressed desire for standards and the need for flexibility from county to county. While DCJS has developed and implemented protocols to assist counties with their supervision responsibilities, auditors found that counties could use additional guidance and support in areas such as training, caseload and review practices, drug and alcohol testing, completing required periodic probationer assessment reports, sex offender supervision and the management of ignition interlock devices.

Department of Labor – Labor Investigations in New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-32)
The Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for enforcing New York Labor Laws (Laws),which provide requirements related to minimum wage, overtime, hours of work, child labor and payment of wages and wage supplements—and DOL’s Division of Labor Standards (Division) is responsible for receiving and investigating labor complaints, and can assess penalties and fines if employers are found to be in violation of the Laws. A prior audit, issued in January 2024, identified weaknesses in several aspects of DOL’s oversight, including significant delays in the Division’s investigation activities that, in turn, diminished the efficiency of case resolution and restitution for workers. DOL made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, two were implemented and five were partially implemented.

City of Albany – Budget Review (Albany County) OSC reviewed the city’s adopted fiscal year 2025 and 2026 budgets and determined that significant revenue and expenditure projections were not reasonable. City officials did not prepare budgets using realistic estimates based on historical trends, actual results and the most current and accurate information available. In addition, city officials relied on non-recurring revenues to finance recurring expenditures. The city experienced an unplanned operating deficit of approximately $25 million in fiscal year 2025, which significantly reduced available financial resources and limited the city’s ability to finance amounts included in the 2026 adopted budget. The 2026 adopted budget includes revenues that the city may not realize and appropriations that are underestimated. If current operating trends continue, auditors project the city will have a fiscal year-end deficit of approximately $26 million.

City of Oneonta – Cybersecurity (Otsego County) City officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard Information Technology (IT) assets from cybersecurity threats. While the city’s third-party IT vendor created several cybersecurity policies, standards and guidelines, the city’s common council did not formally adopt the policies and city officials did not review, enforce or monitor employee compliance with the policies. In addition, officials did not communicate the policies to city employees in a timely manner, and they did not clearly document cybersecurity roles and responsibilities in city employees’ job descriptions. As a result, policy violations occurred, including officials not documenting risk assessment activities and employees not completing cybersecurity awareness training within 30 days of hire.

Lockwood Volunteer Fire Department – Financial Activities (Tioga County) Department officials did not ensure that financial activities were properly supported, authorized, recorded and reported or provide the department board of directors with complete, accurate and timely information needed to effectively oversee the Department’s financial operations.

Town of Wallkill – Budget Review (Orange County) The town’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2026 risks negatively impacting the town’s financial condition and putting the town in a declining financial position. Because the town did not have complete, accurate and current accounting and financial records, auditors’ ability to determine the reasonableness of the town’s significant revenue and expenditure projections was limited. The budget included appropriated fund balance as well as significant revenue and expenditure projections that were not always reasonable or supported. While the one-time state aid of $4 million will ease concerns for the 2026 fiscal year, the combination of these factors puts the town at risk of having a declining financial condition.

Town of Washington – Financial Operations (Dutchess County) The board and officials did not effectively manage the town’s fund balances. As a result, officials maintained unrestricted fund balance in the main operating funds that exceeded the town’s 25% fund balance policy limit and adopted unrealistic budgets that generated operating surpluses and accumulated excess fund balances. Inadequate budgeting practices, including appropriating fund balance that was not needed to fund operations, may have resulted in taxpayers paying more in real property taxes than necessary. In addition, while officials stated that excess fund balance was set aside for future capital plans and maintenance, they did not develop a multiyear financial plan or a capital plan to identify, prioritize and fund those needs and guide budget development and decisions.

Village of Elmsford – Employee Benefits (Westchester County) Village officials did not ensure employees’ leave accruals and payments of unused leave accruals were accurate, approved and supported. Failing to ensure that employees’ leave accruals and payments are accurate resulted in employees being compensated for or taking leave to which they were not entitled and creates the potential for future errors. As a result, the village incurred unnecessary salary-related expenditures.

Village of Fonda – Water Fund Financial Operations (Montgomery County) The board did not effectively manage the water fund’s financial operations, causing the fund balance to decline and reducing the board’s ability to respond to emergencies, infrastructure and service needs or other unanticipated occurrences. In addition, the board did not provide oversight of the clerk-treasurer’s water duties.

Village of Lansing – Procurement (Tompkins County) The board and village officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services according to the statutory requirements in state law, the village’s procurement policy or best practices. As a result, village officials did not have assurance that purchases were made in a manner that guards against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, while fostering honest competition for the village to obtain the best goods and services at the lowest possible price.

###

Join the New York State Bar Association Local and State Government Law Section for its Fall 2026 Meeting at Lake Placid

2026-10-04T14:00:00.000-04:00

Friday, October 9 – Sunday, October 11, 2026
Cambria Hotel – Lake Placid, NY

Join the Local and State Government Law Section for their Fall 2026 Meeting in Lake Placid!

Topics include:

Cybersecurity Current Issues
Election Law Update
Labor Law – Dealing With Difficult Employees
2026 SEQRA Overhaul
EverLaw Intro
Supreme Court Update
Prosecution: Prosecutor vs. Corporation Counsel Roles
Urban Renewal and Economic Development Tools
Battery Energy Storage
Home Rule: Major Questions Doctrine, Boreali and Preemption
Ethics-Attorney Discipline in New York
FOIL and Open Meetings Law Update

Sponsors
Local and State Government Law Section
Committee on Continuing Legal Education

For Public Officials: The New York State Bar Association is registered with the New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying In Government pursuant to the Lobbying Act to engage in lobbying activities. Consequently, public officials cannot accept certain benefits from the Association. Further information can be obtained by contacting an official's agency ethics officer or the Association at (518) 463-3200.

Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities: NYSBA welcomes participation by individuals with disabilities. NYSBA is committed to complying with all applicable laws that prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, programs, activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. To request auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions regarding accessibility, contact the Member Resource Center at 800-582-2452 or mrc@nysba.org.

New York Public Personnel Law E-books

2026-10-04T05:00:00.000-04:00

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE.

Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel - An e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a or 207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click HERE.

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. Click HERE for more information.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 2, 2026

2026-10-03T02:00:00.000-04:00

Reports of kratom-related overdoses are prompting more states to consider bans on a product widely sold online and in convenience stores. Lawmakers are weighing those risks against its use for pain relief and the option of tighter sales and potency rules. Read More

Preparing for Medicaid's New Redetermination Mandates This paper explores practical strategies for preparing for more frequent eligibility reviews, strengthening constituent communications and reducing administrative burden without sacrificing the beneficiary experience. DOWNLOAD

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

New research links housing scarcity and higher rents to increased poverty. In the most affected states, up to 34 percent of poverty can be attributed to skyrocketing housing costs. Read More

A Guide to AI Recruitment Technology for Public Sector Hiring Learn how AI-assisted recruiting can help agencies identify qualified candidates sooner, reduce sourcing work and manage the compliance and security considerations that come with hiring technology. DOWNLOAD

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

Beyond Phones and Hotspots: Building True Connectivity for the Government Workforce No matter where government work happens, employees need secure, reliable access to the applications and data that keep public services moving. This paper explores how state and local agencies can rethink connectivity for field and hybrid work, reduce reliance on unsecured networks, apply Zero-Trust principles, and give employees the ability to complete more work at the point of service. 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

Better User Experiences, Better Government: Designing the Modern Workplace Learn five practical best practices for modernizing meeting spaces, supporting hybrid work and building workplaces that empower employees to focus on serving the public. DOWNLOAD

CLE/CPD-eligible webinar The obligations of lawyers using AI will be offered on Thursday, October 8 at 12 p.m. ET. AI Hallucinations, Confidentiality, and Compliance: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know

How Agentic AI Creates a New Operating Model for Higher Education Security Learn how higher education security teams use AI agents to prioritize threats, automate investigations and extend SOC capacity. WATCH NOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff next filed the instant lawsuit, seeking;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York State Municipal and School audits released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###