Applying the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency,

The doctrine of legislative equivalency requires that "[t]o repeal or modify a statute requires a legislative act of equal dignity and import". 

In the instant two "companion" actions the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court CPLR Article 78 decisions granting the two employee applications seeking to compel the City of Schenectady to pay the two respective CPLR Article 78 Petitioners the cash value of their respective unused sick leave accruals to which they contended they were entitled upon their discontinuing their employment with the City of Schenectady. 

The Appellate Division noted that in 1986 the City of Schenectady adopted had §87-13 of the Code of the City of Schenectady providing that nonunion employees "shall be entitled to convert 75% of [their] unused sick leave [credits] up to a maximum accumulation of 240 days to cash, upon termination of [their] services as an employee with the City." 

The Appellate Division also indicated that "Subsequently, Local Law No. 2011-05 amended Chapter 13 of the City Charter to grant the City Council the authority to fix and determine salaries, compensation and benefits of all City employees and Officers" and "Separate from this authority to establish salaries in the annual budget process, the local law provides that [a]ll other compensation and benefits shall likewise be determined by the City Council pursuant to . . . General Municipal Law §92 and codified in Chapter 87 of the Code of the City of Schenectady  (emphasis supplied by the Appellate Division)"

Holding the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency "applies to attempts to amend a [city] code or ordinance by use of a resolution", the Appellate Division ruled that the employees named in the two appeals filed by the City of Schenectady challenging the Supreme Court's Article 78 rulings were entitled to receive appropriate payments for their unused sick leave accruals upon their discontinuing their employment with the City of Schenectady as the Schenectady City Council's attempt to supersede Chapter 87 of the City Code with a resolution "is inconsistent with the doctrine of legislative equivalency".

Click HERE to access the "lead decision" appeal before the Appellate Division, Matter of Koldin, posted on the Internet.

Click HERE to access the "companion decision" appeal before the Appellate Division, Matter of Marney, posted on the Internet.

New York State Employees Retirement System's Online Tools and Tips

Posted on the Internet by NYSERS on December 04, 2025 

Retirement Online is the fastest and most convenient way to access your retirement account information and conduct business with NYSLRS. In many cases, you can use Retirement Online instead of sending forms through the mail or calling. For example, members can estimate their pension or apply for retirement, and retirees can get their 1099-R tax form or update their federal tax withholding.

Recent disciplinary decisions by New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judges

Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Kevin F. Casey recommended a 30-day suspension after finding that a New York City correction officer submitted a false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete report regarding a colleague’s use of force. 

Judge Casey, however, did not sustain a companion charge that the officer failed to intervene when the same person allegedly engaged in self-harm. 

In recommending a 30-day suspension, the ALJ noted that the evidence did not support a departure from the employer's Disciplinary Guidelines. 

Click HERE to access the text of Judge Casey's decision setting out his findings  and recommended penalty.

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended termination of employment of a New York City Eligibility Specialist after the employer proved the employee failed to report to her work location for approximately four months, was absent without authorization, ignored supervisory directives, and acted aggressively and discourteously. 

Judge Rodriguez noted that although the employer only proved some of the charges, the employee’s prolonged unauthorized absence alone provided sufficient grounds to terminate her employment. 

Click HERE to access the text of Judge Rodriguez's decision setting our his findings and recommended penalty.

Judge Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 20-day suspension of a supervisor after finding that the supervisor failed to perform her duties efficiently and failed to properly supervise her subordinates. 

The ALJ had determined that the employer had proved that the supervisor sent a letter containing confidential information about an applicant to an incorrect childcare program, that the supervisor provided incorrect guidance to a subordinate and that the supervisor had failed to meet deadlines with respect to performing certain of her responsibilities. 

Judge Gloade, however, had concluded that the employer's requested penalty that the supervisor be terminated from her position was excessive given the proven charges and, in consideration of the supervisor's long service and heretofore unblemished record, recommended that the appointing authority impose a penalty of a 20-day suspension*.

 

Click HERE to access the text of Judge Gloade's decision setting out her findings and recommended penalty.

* A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - NYPPL's 442-page e-book focusing 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. Click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html for more information.

Disciplinary decision and the penalty imposed remanded for review with instructions to consider only timely charges and specifications

In this appeal of an administrative disciplinary action which found an employee of the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] guilty of the charges filed against him, the Appellate Division notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure".

Further, opined the court, it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The employee [Petitioner] had been served with a notice of charges and specifications alleging that he had engaged in three specified acts of misconduct when he used biased and discriminatory language in three Facebook comments he had posted on the Internet. One such comment, however, was subsequently determined to have been "untimely" at the time it was charged and served.

The Appellate Division's decision notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure" as it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The revised Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation had not distinguished between the sanction initially recommended by the hearing officer in consideration of finding the employee guilty all three alleged charges of misconduct and an appropriate reasonable sanction recommended by the hearing officer to be imposed based on the employee in consideration of the hearing officer's finding the individual guilty of the surviving two timely alleged acts of misconduct. 

The Appellate Division then remitted the matter to UCS for a new determination and recommendation of a penalty to be made by a hearing officer based solely on the two timely specified acts of misconduct, noting that "DILLON, J.P., LOVE and GOLIA, JJ., concur" while DOWLING, JJ., "voted to confirm the revised determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits, with a memorandum."

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

Rochester women pleads guilty to stealing nearly $13,000 from the New York State Employees' Retirement System by failing to report her mothers death

On December 1, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Monroe County District Attorney Brian Green and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that Karen Walsh, a 68-year-old Rochester woman, pleaded guilty to stealing $12,973 in state pension payments sent to her mother, whose death had not been reported to the pension system. As part of the plea, Walsh was ordered to pay full restitution upfront.

“Ms. Walsh tried to profit off of her mother’s death and defraud the state pension system,” DiNapoli said. “Now, through my partnership with law enforcement, she has been held accountable for her actions and must repay the money she stole. My thanks to D.A. Green and the New York State Police for their work with my office to ensure justice is served.”

“The defendant’s actions represent a misuse of the New York State pension system and, by extension, an offense against the citizens who fund it,” Green said. “Allowing such conduct would undermine the integrity of a system relied upon by countless public servants who dedicated their careers to their communities. I appreciate the thorough work of the State Comptroller’s Office and the New York State Police in this investigation that assisted in today’s resolution. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office is committed to seeking justice and accountability for all who commit economic crimes against the residents of New York State.”

“Ms. Walsh used her mother’s death to her advantage and continued to inexcusably collect the pension meant to support her mother for the remainder of her life. We will continue to aggressively investigate any case involving financial corruption and those who take advantage of the pension system. I commend the Comptroller’s Office and the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office for their partnership in this investigation,” James said.

Walsh’s mother, also of Rochester, received a monthly payment as the beneficiary of her deceased husband’s state pension. When she passed away in 2020, her pension payments should have stopped, however, Karen Walsh failed to report the death to the pension system and instead pocketed the money.  A total of $19,524 in pension payments went to Walsh’s account.

Walsh stole $12,973 by withdrawing over $4,000 from the account and transferring at least $8,000 to a second account in her mother’s name to which she also had access. She wrote checks from that second account, forging her deceased mother’s name and endorsing the back of the checks with her own signature, before depositing them into her own account. Walsh also used the second account in her mother’s name to make personal credit card payments, pay for home improvements and buy groceries.

Walsh pleaded guilty to petit larceny before Judge Van H. White in Rochester City Court.

###

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