ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Oct 6, 2025

The health insurance benefits of a retiree of a school district or a BOCES cannot be diminished unless a corresponding diminution is made for its active employees

In this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, Petitioner challenged a decision of the Board of a Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES] to discontinue its reimbursing certain of its retired employees' Medicare Part B charges and eliminated its reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums. 

Petitioner also sought a judgment declaring that the BOCES violated Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994, as amended by Chapter 22 of the Laws of 2007, the so-called "Moratorium Law", prohibiting a school district or a BOCES from diminishing its retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes a corresponding diminution of such benefits then available to its active employees.

Supreme Court granted the Petitioner's appeal and annulled the BOCES' action. The BOCES was directed to reinstate the subject reimbursements and benefits and the Supreme Court held that the BOCES had violated the Moratorium Law. The BOCES appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's determinations, explaining:

1. The Moratorium Law "sets a minimum baseline or floor for retiree health benefits, which is measured by the health insurance benefits received by the employer's active employees";

2. A school district or BOCES "may not diminish retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes 'a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees'"; and

3. The purpose of the Moratorium Law "is to protect the rights of retirees who are not represented in the collective bargaining process".

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had correctly determined that BOCES did not make a "corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees" when it reduced the reimbursements to the Petitioner's Medicare Part B charges and eliminated reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums. 

In addition, the Appellate Division opined that "Supreme Court correctly compared the health insurance coverage offered to certain retirees to the health insurance coverage offered to the active employees" and found that BOCES' contentions to the contrary were "without merit".

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



Oct 4, 2025

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending October 4, 2025

Data Tangles & AI Wrangles: Mastering the Chaos of Complex Systems This webinar explores the real-world challenges IT leaders encounter when linking diverse data sources, legacy applications and modern AI tools.WATCH NOW 

Government Workforce Resilience in the Age of Efficiency Hear how forward-thinking state and local agencies are building self-sufficient teams that maintain quality and security standards even during rapid transitions. WATCH NOW

Low-Code Strategies That Actually Work in Government Hear how state and local agencies are using low/no-code tools to reduce IT backlog, scale services and maintain strong security and governance. WATCH NOW

Next-Gen IT: Smarter Devices and Flexible Management Learn how smarter IT strategies can boost workforce satisfaction, streamline operations and support a future-ready public sector. WATCH NOW 

Public vs. Private Sector CIAM: What Sets Them Apart and Why It Matters Explore tailored CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management) solutions, built for the public sector. WATCH NOW

AI-Powered Automation that Serves Your Mission for Efficient Government Gain insights on how to deploy secure, scalable AI solutions that work seamlessly with your current infrastructure—ensuring compliance and minimizing risk. WATCH NOW  

Making It Easier for Residents to Sign In and Use Digital Services Digital services are expanding, but many agencies still rely on outdated systems to manage how people sign in and access them. This white paper explains how modernizing identity and access management can help reduce fraud, cut support costs, and make online services easier and safer for everyone to use. DOWNLOAD 

Transparency in Motion: Real-Time Data for Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Public safety agencies are under pressure to do more with less -- respond faster, operate more efficiently, and remain accountable to both leadership and the communities they serve. This paper explores how telematics and in-vehicle data are helping agencies meet those expectations and deliver measurable results. DOWNLOAD  

Making It Easier for Residents to Sign In and Use Digital Services Digital services are expanding, but many agencies still rely on outdated systems to manage how people sign in and access them. This white paper explains how modernizing identity and access management can help reduce fraud, cut support costs, and make online services easier and safer for everyone to use. DOWNLOAD 

Transparency in Motion: Real-Time Data for Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Public safety agencies are under pressure to do more with less -- respond faster, operate more efficiently, and remain accountable to both leadership and the communities they serve. This paper explores how telematics and in-vehicle data are helping agencies meet those expectations and deliver measurable results. DOWNLOAD 


Webinar – AI and its transformation of state courts Access the webinar to learn more about AI’s potential to revolutionize your court’s operational efficiency Watch Today!


Oct 3, 2025

New York State Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section 2025 Fall Meeting

This notice was emailed to NYPPL by the 
New York State Bar Association
One Elk Street Albany, NY, 12207, USA
and is being posted pro bono. 


To view this email as a web page, click here.
Join/Renew
Labor and Employment Law Section Fall Meeting
Friday, October 17, 2025 – Sunday, October 19, 2025
Prince of Wales – Ontario, Canada
Register Now
Book Hotel
Join the Labor and Employment Law Section at the iconic Prince of Wales Hotel. First built in 1864, The Prince of Wales stands as a historical landmark in Niagara-on-the-Lake named in honour of a visit by the Duke and Duchess of York in 1901. This fall, elevate your expertise in the heart of Niagara-on-the-Lake, explore the tree-lines streets with world-renowned theatre, lush gardens, charming boutiques, historic architecture, five-star cuisine and award-winning wine. Don't miss this unique opportunity to connect, collaborate, and recharge with peers in a setting designed for both serious work and serious fun!

Topics include:
  • A Year of Change: Critical Issues in Labor and Employment Law 2025 and Beyond
  • Across the U.S./Canada Border in 90 Minutes
  • Advanced Topics in Workplace Accommodations
  • In the Age of Sharing and Oversharing: Preserving Confidentiality and Privilege
  • Do I Really Need To Negotiate Over That?: Mandatory, Non-Mandatory and Prohibited Subjects of Negotiation
  • Trends in Employment Arbitration: What NY Attorneys and Neutrals Need To Know
  • Training Repayment Agreement Provisions: An Impairment to Employee Mobility?
View Full Agenda
Sponsor
Labor & Employment Law Section

General Meeting Sponsor

Rumack Dispute Resolution
Speakers
Abigail R. Levy, Esq., NYC Office Of Collective Bargaining 
Taa R. Grays, Esq., President-Elect, New York State Bar Association 
R. Scott DeLuca, Esq., Panel Leader Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 
Danny DeVoe, Esq., Sahn Ward Braff Coschignano PLLC 
Maia Goodell, Esq., Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C. 
Kaylin Whittingham, Esq., Panel Leader Whittingham Law 
Cara Greene, Esq., Outten and Golden
Randall Tesser, Esq., Tesser, Ryan, and Rochman, LLP 
Jon Ben-Asher, Esq., Panel Leader Ritz Clark & Ben-Asher, LLP 
Jocelyn Samuels, J.D. Former Vice Chair, EEOC 
Jill Rosenberg, Esq., Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 
Rita A. Sethi, Esq., Attorney at Law 
Susan Cameron, Esq., Associate General Counsel 32BJ SEIU 
Wendi Lazar, Esq., Panel Leader Founder & CEO of C-Suite Strategies, LLC 
Samantha Seabrook, Esq., Seabrook Workplace Law 
Kevin MacNeill, Esq., Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 
Evan J. Green, Esq., Green and Speigel 
Ira Cure, Esq., Panel Leader Arbitrator/Mediator 
Lance H. Klein, Esq., Keane & Beane, P.C. 
Kayla Morin, Esq., Cohen, Weiss & Simon 
Ann Lesser, Esq., Panel Leader American Arbitration Association 
Hon. Carol Heckman (ret.), Lippes Mathias LLP 
Robert S. Whitman, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP 
Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq., The Klein and Cardali Law Group PLLS 
Geoffrey Mort, Esq., Panel Leader Kraus and Zuchlewski LLP 
Troy Kessler, Esq., Kessler Matura P.C. 
Alexander Leonard, Esq., Vedder Price 
Visit the Section Website
This notice was emailed to NYPPL by the 
New York State Bar Association
One Elk Street Albany, NY, 12207, USA
and has been posted pro bono.



Oct 1, 2025

An applicant for accidental disability retirement must establish that the disability suffered was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law

Petitioner, a police detective assigned to an executive protection detail, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits contending that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as the result of an incident that occurred in the course of his performance of his duties. 

The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [ERS] denied Petitioner's application based on its determination the underlying incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal. 

An Administrative Hearing Officer sustained the ERS ruling after an administrative  hearing. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the ERS ruling.

Citing Matter of Stefanik v Gardner, 236 AD3d 75, the Appellate Division dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, explaining:

1. "As the applicant, [Petitioner] bore the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, ERS's determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence; 

2. "An accident in this context means a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact";* 

3. Petitioner testified that on the day in question he was assigned to the executive protection detail and, in that capacity, had transported a county executive to various meetings and that he did not recall anything significant events having occurring in the course of his performing such tasks; and 

4. The record did not indicate that Petitioner had engaged in any particularly stressful or strenuous activity in the course of Petitioner's performance of such duties 

Based on the record, the Appellate Division held the Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, disagreeing with Petitioner's argument to the extent that he had contended that "the chest pain he experienced — in and of itself — was sudden and unexpected and, hence, qualified as a precipitating accidental event".

Accordingly, the Court ruled that "ERS's determination denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits will not be disturbed".

* See Matter of Stefanik v Gardner, 236 AD3d 75.

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


Sep 30, 2025

A per diem substitute teacher was ineligible for unemployment insurance as she was given a reasonable assurance of continued employment during the next school year

A Claimant for unemployment insurance worked as a per diem substitute teacher for the employer, [School District]. During the 2022-2023 school year, Claimant had completed 169 assignments as an elementary school substitute, working either full or half days, out of the 184 days in that school year. 

On June 1, 2023, School District emailed Claimant a "Letter of Assurance" informing Claimant that it wished to retain her as a substitute teacher in the same capacity in the 2023-2024 school year, under substantially the same economic terms and conditions as the prior year, and that her expected earnings would be no less than 90% of the prior year's earnings. Claimant acknowledged receipt of the School District's letter and advised School District that she wished to remain on the substitute teacher list for 2023-2024 school year. Nevertheless, between the academic terms, Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. 

The Department of Labor [Department] determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits, finding that the School District had offered Claimant a reasonable assurance of continued employment in the upcoming school year consistent with the provisions set out in Labor Law §590(10). Claimant appealed the Department's decision.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] reversed the Department's determination, finding that the School District had not provided Claimant with a reasonable assurance of continued employment. Ultimately the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, adopting the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and made additional factual findings. The School District appealed the Board's determination.

Labor Law §590(10) provides that "a professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment". The Appellate Division, noting that "A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period", held "Whether an employee has received such assurances "is a factual issue for the Board" to resolve and its determination will be sustained "provided that it is supported by substantial evidence".

In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that "Upon review of the record ... the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence", observing that in reaching its conclusion, the Board essentially imposed a requirement that a reasonable assurance be a guarantee of earnings during the following school year, "an interpretation that finds no support in the statute or case law". 

The Court held that the letter of assurance sent to Claimant indicated, without qualification, that she would be given the opportunity to perform services for the employer in the same capacity for the 2023-2024 school year, "under substantially the same economic terms and conditions as in the previous school year". Further, the Claimant was advised that "her name would remain on an automated electronic registry used for granting access to assignments", and that she would receive assignments in the same manner as the prior year "due to the continued need for substitutes during the 2023-2024 school year." 

Although the letter did not advise Claimant that there would be a pay increase for per diem substitute teachers, the School District's letter promise that work would be available under the "same economic terms and conditions." 

Given this record, including the letter of assurance and the testimony of the parties, the Appellate Division opined that there was "no reason to believe that the [School District's assurances [of continued employment] ... were illusory", and concluded that the Board's finding that the School District failed to provide Claimant with a reasonable assurance of continued employment "is not supported by substantial evidence and its decision must be reversed".

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


Sep 29, 2025

Disciplinary hearing officer recommended that all disciplinary charges served on the employee be dismissed

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls recommended the dismissal of all disciplinary charges filed against a correction officer [CO] by her employer, the New York City Department of Corrections [Department]. The Department had alleged that the CO failed to report for duty on 15 occasions. 

Department, seeking a 30-day suspension, charged the CO did not have authorization for these 15 absences. CO did not dispute her absences but testified that she requested personal emergency leave on each of the 15 occasions cited in accordance with the Department's procedure due to a lack of childcare for her seven-year-old daughter. 

For five of the CO’s absences, the ALJ dismissed the misconduct charges because the Department’s own evidence established that the Department granted the CO's leave requests for those days of absence. 

Addressing the remaining ten absences, Judge McGeachy-Kuls found that CO proved she followed Department procedures for requesting personal emergency leave by contacting her superior and presenting extensive evidence in support of her request for each such absence and submitted written documentation in support of her request upon her return to duty. 

As the Department did not challenge nor dispute the CO's compliance with its procedures, the Administrative Law held that Department was required to establish why the CO’s leave requests were denied to prove misconduct on the part of the CO. The ALJ found that the Department did not make such a showing and that it failed to inform CO that it denied her requests and provide reasons for the denials. 

Accordingly, Judge McGreach-Kuls found that the Department failed to prove the charges it had filed against the CO and recommended the appointing authority dismiss all charges. 

The Department of Correction's Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings and recommendation in full.

Click HERE to access the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation posted on the Internet.


Government Technology Webinars scheduled to be held during the week ending October 3, 2025

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET 

Next-Gen IT for Government and Education: Smarter Devices and Flexible Management Learn how smarter IT strategies can boost workforce satisfaction, streamline operations and support a future-ready public sector. REGISTER

 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET 

Build Smarter, Not Slower: Low-Code Strategies That Actually Work in Government Hear how state and local agencies are using low/no-code tools to reduce IT backlog, scale services and maintain strong security and governance. REGISTER

 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET 

Staying Connected When It Matters Most: Smarter, Safer Tech for First Responders Join experts from Ericsson, PMC and Woodland Park, NJ, as they how 5G and secure networks are transforming public safety operations in this community. REGISTER

 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET

Government Workforce Resilience in the Age of Efficiency Leaner teams don’t have to mean higher risk. Watch this webinar to see how public agencies are staying efficient under pressure. REGISTER

 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET 

Data Tangles & AI Wrangles: Mastering the Chaos of Complex Systems This Government Technology webinar, sponsored by Hyland Software, will explore the real-world challenges IT leaders encounter when linking diverse data sources, legacy applications and modern AI tools. REGISTER


Sep 27, 2025

Complimentary Government Technology Webinar- Navigating the shift

On September 30, 2025 Government and Technology will conduct a 30 minute Webinar for State and local government and education (SLED) leaders who register covering employment changes resulting from shifting federal priorities and evolving funding landscapes to rising demands for innovation and resilience. This 30 minute Webinar will start 1:30 PM PT / 4:30 PM ET

Government and Technology noted that these changes create both new opportunities and shared challenges for public agencies and their private-sector partners.

Teri Takai, Chief Programs Officer of Government Technology, and Joe Morris, Chief Innovation Officer, will conduct a live, interactive "Ask Us Anything" 30-minute webinarwhere they will turn the floor over to participants! Instead of a set agenda, they will take questions from participants — submitted in advance or asked live — on the issues shaping the public-sector landscape, from federal policy shifts to emerging trends across education, infrastructure, emergency services, and more. 

Whether you’re a public-sector leader refining your agency’s strategy or a private-sector vendor aligning your solutions with government priorities, this interactive session ensures you walk away with the actionable answers you need.

Click here to REGISTER 

Can’t attend the live briefing? Those registering now can make arrangement to have a recording of the program sent to them.

Questions? Contact Government Technology at resources@govtech.com



Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending September 26, 2025

AI That Works for Government: Smarter Tools, Better Experiences  Hear how public agencies are using AI built for government to streamline services, reduce friction and meet rising resident expectations. WATCH NOW 

Inside Recent Public Sector Breaches: What the Data Tells Us  Government agencies are facing a rising tide of targeted cyberattacks. This report breaks down the most common tactics hackers used in 2024 to infiltrate and persist inside public systems. Learn what made these attacks successful—and what public sector leaders need to know to keep systems, data, and citizens safe. DOWNLOAD

Public vs. Private Sector CIAM: What Sets Them Apart  Explore tailored CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management) solutions, built for the public sector. WATCH NOW 

Ask the Experts: Navigating AI Adoption in Government  Whether your agency is just starting to look at AI or already experimenting with pilots, this discussion will offer valuable insights into how government leaders are thinking strategically about the future of AI in public service. WATCH NOW 

Future-Ready IT Service: Insights from City of Ft. Myers  Hear how forward-thinking IT leaders are modernizing service delivery to drive efficiency, empower staff and better serve their  communities. WATCH NOW 

Paperless Billing: Cut Fraud, Costs, and Delinquent Payments  Learn how digital billing can help your agency cut costs, reduce fraud, and improve service delivery. WATCH NOW 

Mayors lead with tech-enabled transit solutions. City leaders share firsthand how on-demand transit is bridging gaps and boosting economies. Read the full article featuring insights from city leaders.

3 Ways to Get Ahead of Data Management Challenges in 2026  Security and IT teams in government are facing more data, more mandates, and tighter budgets. In this 30-minute webinar, learn practical ways to manage data smarter — so you can reduce waste, improve visibility, and stay ready for what’s next. WATCH NOW

Launch an on-demand service in 6 weeks  Explore how municipalities launched efficient on-demand networks in record time. How to launch a microtransit service in a matter of weeks. 


Sep 26, 2025

New York State's Comptroller issues fiscal stress monitoring report for certain local governments

Click on text highlighted in color below to access the report posted on the Internet

On September 26, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issue a financial stress report indicated that 23 local governments in New York State were designated as being "in financial stress" for local fiscal years [FYE] ending in 2024 based on the State Comptroller's Fiscal Stress Monitoring System [FSMS] reports.

“The number of local governments designated in fiscal stress, while still low, rose over the prior year, as federal pandemic relief funding was winding down,” DiNapoli said. “Local governments now facing volatility in revenue sources and uncertainty from significant shifts in federal spending should remain vigilant and pragmatic when spending and planning for the future.”

DiNapoli launched FSMS in 2013 to evaluate fiscal stress for local governments, using indicators based on year-end fund balance, operating deficits, cash-on-hand, short-term borrowing and fixed costs. The system’s fiscal stress scores provide an early warning to local officials about fiscal issues and give the public insight into their communities’ financial condition.

DiNapoli releases fiscal stress scores for municipalities, excluding New York City, twice a year. The scores announced today are for local governments operating on a calendar year basis for FYE 2024, covering all counties and towns, 44 cities and 13 villages. This round of scoring designated 14 local governments in fiscal stress, including four cities, nine towns and one village. In April, DiNapoli announced that nine villages with non-calendar fiscal years were designated in stress. School district scores are released in January.

For FYE 2024, the City of Little Falls (Herkimer County), as well as the villages of Cambridge (Washington), Island Park (Nassau), and Saugerties (Ulster), were designated in the highest-ranking category of “significant stress.”

The cities of Albany (Albany) and Poughkeepsie (Dutchess) were designated in “moderate fiscal stress,” along with the towns of Massena (St. Lawrence) and Yates (Orleans) and the villages of Coxsackie (Greene), South Blooming Grove (Orange), and Washingtonville (Orange).

The City of Elmira (Chemung), as well as the towns of Bennington (Wyoming), Canton (St. Lawrence), Centerville (Allegany), Kent (Putnam), Louisville (St. Lawrence), Schroeppel (Oswego), and West Turin (Lewis), were designated as “susceptible to fiscal stress.” The villages of Chateaugay (Franklin), Huntington Bay (Suffolk), Kaser (Rockland), and Liberty (Sullivan) were also designated as “susceptible to fiscal stress.”

FSMS FYE2024

Along with the scores released on September 26, 2025y, DiNapoli released a report summarizing FYE 2024 fiscal stress scoring results for both calendar year and non-calendar year municipalities, including designations by class, FSMS indicator analysis, and issues of concern, among other things.

The report found that:

  • Ten of the municipalities designated in fiscal stress in FYE 2024 also received a designation in 2023. This includes the cities of Albany, Little Falls, and Poughkeepsie.
  • While the percentage of cities designated in fiscal stress increased from 6.8% in FYE 2023 to 8.5% in 2024, it was still well below the double-digit rates seen from 2020 to 2022.
  • The number of towns designated as susceptible to fiscal stress more than tripled, from two to seven; however, the number of towns designated in moderate stress decreased by one, while none were in the significant category.
  • No counties received a fiscal stress designation for the fourth consecutive year.

The report also found that the number of municipalities that failed to file required annual financial reports with DiNapoli’s office in time to receive a fiscal stress score declined in FYE 2024, dropping from 264 in 2023 to 240. However, that number is nearly double what it was 10 years ago. In 2025, DiNapoli’s office has made additional targeted outreach and training efforts to help local governments comply with the law and bring their financial reporting up to date.     

A municipality that fails to file its financial reports in time to receive a fiscal stress score may indicate a lack of proper financial management, prevent local officials from taking necessary steps to avoid a fiscal crisis, and diminish transparency and accountability, undermining public confidence.

Three of the municipalities designated in fiscal stress in FYE 2024 had not received a FSMS score in multiple years because they failed to file annual financial data in time: the Village of Island Park, which had not received a score from FYE 2020 to 2023, was designated in significant stress in 2024, and the Town of Massena and the Village of Washingtonville were each designated in moderate stress in FYE 2024 after not filing in time to receive a score from 2018 to 2023.

Lists

Municipalities Designated in Stress for Fiscal Year Ending 2024

Municipalities Who Did Not File in Time or Filed Inconclusively

Excel Spreadsheet

Detailed List of All Municipalities in State and Fiscal Stress Scores

Report

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System – Municipalities: Fiscal Year 2024 Results

Online Interactive Visualization

https://www.osc.ny.gov/local-government/fiscal-monitoring/fiscal-stress-monitoring-system-statistics

###

NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com