On September 28, 2026, GT Weekly's Executive Editor, Noelle Knell, reported

"There’s new IT leadership in New York State following the announcement that CIO Dru Rai has left state service. See how New York and the other 49 states fared in the 2026 Digital States Survey. Results reveal an evolving landscape on things like IT strategy, cybersecurity, AI and data management. We also checked in with South Carolina CIO Nathan Hogue, who shared that the state is now tracking 250 AI use cases. Meanwhile in Washington State, a new CISO has been named. Finally, while AI threats to cybersecurity have been dominating headlines, ransomware remains alive and well."

Owner of Ulster County medical transportation company sentenced to prison for stealing $1.1 million in Medicare fraud scheme

On September 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Ulster County District Attorney Emmanuel C. Nneji announced the owner of an Ulster County medical transportation service company today was sentenced to serve three to nine years in state prison and ordered to pay full restitution for stealing over $1.1 million by unlawfully billing the Medicaid program by inflating charges and billing for services that were never provided.

Muhammad W. Khan, 31, the owner of MAK Limo, pleaded guilty in March to grand larceny in Ulster County Court before Judge Bryan Rounds.

“Muhammad Khan falsified bills and bribed patients to deprive the Medicaid program of over a million dollars, taking money that should have rightly been spent on healthcare for New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “I thank Ulster County District Attorney Nneji for his partnership on this case and in fighting public fraud.”

“This huge theft scheme was uncovered, and the perpetrators brought to justice, by the tenacious and collaborative efforts of the investigators and lawyers dedicated to the case,” Nneji said. “I am grateful to Comptroller DiNapoli for his commitment to holding these operations accountable and recovering public funds stolen by the defendant.”

Under the Medicaid program, patients may use transportation services to go to legitimate medical appointments. Providers then bill the Medicaid program. Group rides are not allowed without prior authorization, and approved providers can only bill for mileage once for a group.

As part of the joint investigation, investigators found the defendant systematically billed the Medicaid program individually for rides that were actually group rides and for rides that never occurred. The investigation also found patients were paid kickbacks to use MAK Limo’s services and facilitate the fraud. The crimes occurred from November 2020 to August 2024.

Khan was arrested in June 2025 along with his father, Mohammad A. Khan, 69, the owner of Atlas Limo. Both companies were enrolled in the Medicaid program and received over $5.8 million dollars in Medicaid payments from New York state.

Mohammad A. Khan was charged with grand larceny in the second degree. He was accused of stealing $111,548.

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

###

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 25, 2026

Automate Social Service Eligibility Verifications with Instant Results Automated verification solutions help agencies adapt to H.R. 1 without increasing administrative paperwork. Learn More

Making AI work today Discover where AI is delivering results, with examples from agencies. Get your free pass

Leveraging AI for IT & Security Operations Only 7% of orgs have AI security in practice. The other 93%? Start here. Download the eBook

Drawing on real-world examples from states and cities Explore how policymakers can build safeguards that keep pace with rapidly evolving technology.  DOWNLOAD

How the Philadelphia Water Department Builds Trust and Drives Action  Philadelphia Water Department used targeted, data-driven communications to increase resident engagement, improve service delivery and build trust around critical water infrastructure projects. READ NOW

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

Prepare Your Agency for New H.R. 1 Eligibility Requirements Bridge system gaps with automated tools that deliver fast, seamless verifications for agency compliance. Learn More

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

Working to control the dangers of AI. Below are some of the players and the efforts being considered:

1. www.gsb.stanford.edu › insights › blueprint-keeping A Blueprint for Keeping Humans in Control of AI Sep 10, 2026 · Stanford GSB researchers are building frameworks that keep AI under human control even as they become more autonomous. In a cooperative game, an AI agent learns when to check in with a person and when to act alone.

2. controlai.org Superintelligent AI: An Extinction Risk to Humanity | ControlAI With Superintelligent AI, the risks of unsafe development, deployment, or misuse could be catastrophic—even existential—as digital intelligence surpasses human capabilities.

3. cacm.acm.org › blogcacm › controlling-ai Controlling AI – Communications of the ACM Oct 1, 2023 · Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly called for a CERN for AI, as well something like an IAEA for AI, all very much in line with what I and others have hoped for.

4. www.technologyreview.com › 2023/05/22 › 1073482 Our quick guide to the 6 ways we can regulate AI | MIT ... May 22, 2023 · We’ve analyzed six different international attempts to regulate artificial intelligence, set out the pros and cons of each, and given them a rough score indicating how influential we think... Author: Melissa Heikkilä

5. www.weforum.org › stories › artificial-intelligence The oversight paradox: Human control over AI may be eroding Jul 2, 2026 · AI requires human oversight, but the practice that requires is eroding. Here's why keeping humans in the governance loop will be key to governing AI well.

6. tech.yahoo.com › ai › articles Microsoft’s AI CEO says ‘controlling’ AI ‘is going to be a ... Sep 19, 2026 · "We should not create something that we can't control," Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman said.

7. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › AI_capability_control AI capability control - Wikipedia Capability control, such as a "kill switch," becomes less effective as agents become more intelligent and their ability to exploit flaws in human control systems increases.

Employer served disciplinary charges on an Employee after Employee placed a racially inflammatory message on the Employee's Facebook page

In this CPLR Article 75* seeking to vacate a determination of a hearing officer made pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denying Plaintiff's petition.

Plaintiff, a tenured employee, was served with disciplinary charges alleging Employee posted a racially inflammatory message on Employee's Facebook page  which resulted in the School District [Employer] charging Plaintiff with misconduct and insubordination. Following an Education Law §3020-a disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a determination sustained the charges and found that the appropriate penalty was termination of Plaintiff's employment.

Plaintiff commenced the instant CPLR Article 75 in Supreme Court seeking a court order vacating hearing officer's determination. Supreme Court denied the petition and the petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that:

1. "Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through statutory mandate ... the arbitrator's determination is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily";

2. "An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious";

3.  An "article 75 review questions whether the decision was rational or had a plausible basis"; and

4. In the event the evidence submitted may be interpreted in more than one way, "this Court must 'accept the arbitrator['s] credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists'".

The Appellate Division found that the hearing officer's determination had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious and appropriately credited the testimony of the different witnesses, and "there is no cause to disturb the hearing officer's credibility determinations without improperly substituting judgment".

Noting that "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", the fact that "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for . . . refashioning the penalty". 

Further, the Appellate Division said that "The question of whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience requires a case-by-case factual analysis" and concluded that "in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the adverse impact of the racially charged posting on the school and the community, the penalty of termination of employment is not irrational and does not shock the conscience".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly denied the petition".

* Supreme Court incorrectly cited CPLR Article 78 instead of CPLR Article 75, which is the standard of review mandated by Education Law §3020-a(5)(a). Nevertheless, applying the proper standard, which was briefed by the parties, the Appellate Division affirmed.

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