Petitioner found guilty of violated a NYPD policy prohibiting discourteous, disparaging, or disrespectful remarks based on membership in a protected class

The New York City Police Department [NYPD] demoted Petitioner from probationary captain to lieutenant effective March 17, 2023. On December 12, 2023, the Department, after a disciplinary hearing, approved the finding of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Trials that Petitioner was guilty of employment discrimination and imposed a penalty of the loss of 30 day of vacation.

The Appellate Division unanimously denied Petitioner's appeal of NYPD's disciplinary action taken against Petitioner, finding that substantial evidence supported the Department's determination that Petitioner violated a NYPD policy prohibiting discourteous, disparaging, or disrespectful remarks based on membership in a protected class.

Petitioner had admitted that he stated to a group of subordinates that he "prefer[s] two female officers not riding in the same car" and that "a female officer might not be able to handle some situation[s] ... because most of the female officers don't have upper body strength" and "need a male officer to help in a fight." Two other officers who were present testified that Petitioner also suggested that two women officers, if partnered together, will "gossip." 

The Appellate Division said, based on the testimony of Petitioner's two subordinates who witnessed the comments, the NYPD had a rational basis to conclude that Petitioner had made "disparaging remarks" about women in violation of NYPD procedure. 

The Appellate Division's decision noted that "... assuming [Petitioner's] preference for mixed-gender patrol assignments was grounded in genuine concerns for officer safety and community engagement, the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded that the message [Petitioner] communicated was that women officers cannot handle themselves in the field".

Further, opined the Court, "Contrary to [Petitioner's] contention, the NYPD need not prove that [Petitioner's] conduct would be actionable under the New York City Human Rights Law in order to discipline Petitioner for making 'disparaging' remarks. On the contrary, the Police Commissioner is authorized "to discipline officers for violations of NYPD rules and codes of conduct", citing the Administrative Code of City of NY §14-115[a]".

As to Petitioner's challenge to his prehearing demotion from probationary captain to lieutenant, the Appellate Division held that the challenge was time-barred because Petitioner commenced this proceeding "more than four months after that decision became final on March 17, 2023" nor did NYPD create any ambiguity about the finality of the decision to demote Petitioner or suggest that it was contingent on the outcome of the disciplinary hearing  as "the letter notifying [Petitioner] of [Petitioner's] demotion to lieutenant clearly communicated its effective date." 

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

New York State's "Express NY" program

On February 20, 2026, the New York State Workers' Compensation Board posted a notice on the Internet concerning New York State Governor Kathy Hochul's announcement of a new statewide effort to streamline regulations and improve government in which the Governor asked New Yorkers for ideas.

Governor Kathy Hochul had earlier announced the launch ing of EXPRESS NY (Expediting Processes and Regulations to Enable Streamlined Services), which aims to tackle outdated and burdensome regulations, policies, and practices that stand in the way of New York State's delivering services.

The State has launched a new portal for New Yorkers to share ideas on reducing red tape by identifying New York State regulations, policies, procedures and practices that add an unnecessary process or burden, or that are simply out of date.

The Governor is looking for recommendations that will: 

• Speed up housing & infrastructure development
• Support small businesses
• Streamline access to services
• And more!

New Yorkers are encouraged to submit their ideas using the Internet portal highlighted in red above, which will be open until April 3, 2026.

Click press release to read more contained in an Internet posting dated February 13, 2026.

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending February 20, 2026

Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD

Maximizing the Benefits of Low/No-Code Platforms in Government This paper explains how public sector leaders are using LCNC to empower staff, apply automation and simplify legacy tech environments. DOWNLOAD 

Navigating the Next Era of Government Work: A Guide for AI Learning and Development This guide shows public sector leaders how to design and implement AI training programs that equip employees at every level -- from frontline staff to senior leadership -- with the skills and confidence to use AI responsibly and effectively.  DOWNLOAD 

Visibility and Resilience: Embracing Autonomous Technologies in Government State and local agencies face expanding attack surfaces, AI-driven threats and staffing gaps that traditional endpoint tools can’t handle. This guide gives IT and security leaders a clear, step-by-step roadmap to real-time endpoint visibility, faster response and modern automation to protect critical services and boost resilience.  DOWNLOAD 

4 Ways Government Organizations Are Driving Efficiency Government and education organizations are under growing pressure to do more with fewer resources. This thought leadership white paper explores four proven ways SLED organizations are driving efficiency through modernization, from process mapping and AI-powered automation to cloud adoption and improved constituent experiences. DOWNLOAD 

The 2026 State of Online Payments This sixth annual report delivers essential insights into how, when, and why Americans are paying their bills digitally.  DOWNLOAD

Simplifying Service Delivery for All: How to Implement Self-Service Tools in Government This publication explores how self-service solutions can transform interactions with government, making services more accessible while reducing administrative burden behind the scenes. DOWNLOAD 

How Smart Police Stations Are Redefining Public Service Self-service kiosks are helping law enforcement agencies deliver faster, clearer service by digitizing high-impact workflows and reducing front-desk demands. READ NOW

Making Budget Information Easier to Read, Find, and Use Most residents want to understand how public dollars are used, but traditional budget documents make that difficult. This guide breaks down why static PDFs and technical language limit engagement, and how agencies are rethinking budget and ACFR publishing to make information easier to follow, easier to update, and easier to access. DOWNLOAD

Medicaid & SNAP: How Automation Addresses New Legislative Mandates  HHS agencies are facing a perfect storm as they work to improve Medicaid and SNAP program administration. Try UiPath Free 

Local government and school audits issued by the New York State Comptroller posted on the Internet

On February 19, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued and posted on the Internet.

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

Newburgh Enlarged City School District – Financial Management (Orange County)

The board and district officials overestimated certain appropriations, underestimated certain revenues, and made unbudgeted year-end transfers totaling $67 million, which collectively reduced the effectiveness of managing the district’s financial condition. The board and district officials also made it appear they needed more funding to meet operational needs than was needed by appropriating fund balance to balance the budget when the appropriations weren’t needed. Because realistic budgets were not adopted, the board and district officials accumulated significant fund balance. The variances between the budgets district officials presented to taxpayers and the district’s actual operational results during the audit period were approximately $87 million. Of the $67 million in year-end transfers, $50.6 million went to the district’s reserves.

Caneadea Fire District – Treasurer’s Records and Reports (Allegany County)

The treasurer did not record and report all financial transactions in a timely and accurate manner, which increased the risk that improper or unauthorized activity could have occurred without detection or correction. Although auditors did not identify any improper or unauthorized activity, the board did not have sufficient information to effectively oversee the district’s financial operations and make informed decisions because financial records and reports were incomplete and inaccurate. If the board had performed an effective annual audit of the treasurer’s records, the errors and omissions identified by auditors might have been detected and corrected.

Town of Palermo – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Oswego County)

The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the 2021 through 2024 Annual Financial Reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required. The supervisor also did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports. Had the board received complete, accurate and reliable monthly reports and conducted an annual audit of the supervisor’s books, records and documents, it may have identified and potentially helped remedy these issues.

Beekmantown Fire District No. 1 – Investment Program (Clinton County)

Auditors determined that the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid. However, officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. For example, officials did not prepare monthly cash flow forecasts to estimate funds available for investment or solicit interest rate quotes from financial institutions. During the 25-month audit period, the district earned $114 in investment earnings, even though it had an average of $530,000 available to invest each month. Had officials considered alternative legally permissible investment options, the district may have increased the investment earnings by more than $52,000.

Beekmantown Fire District No. 1 – Board Oversight (Clinton County)

The board did not adequately oversee the district’s financial operations related to maintaining accounting records, preparing bank reconciliations, submitting monthly and annual financial reports, auditing and approving claims and performing annual audits. The board did not provide oversight of the secretary-treasurer’s duties related to maintaining the accounting records. Auditors reviewed 257 disbursements for claims paid totaling $222,372 and identified several deficiencies in the records. The inadequately maintained accounting records also prevented the treasurer from being able to properly reconcile the district’s bank accounts during the audit period. The board also did not ensure that the treasurer submitted adequate monthly financial reports or that the treasurer prepared and filed an Annual Financial Report (AFR) each year. As a result, as of Jan. 31, 2025, the district’s AFRs for the 2019 through 2023 fiscal years were between 337 and 1,798 days late.

Village of Churchville – Financial Management (Monroe County)

The board did not effectively manage fund balance in accordance with its fund balance policy, which resulted in the general fund’s unrestricted fund balance exceeding the 30% maximum limit for the past three fiscal years. The board also inappropriately allocated board member and village attorney salaries and benefits totaling $117,709 to the sewer fund instead of the general fund in the 2022-23 through 2024-25 fiscal years. As a result, there is an inaccurate depiction of the actual financial condition of the general and sewer funds. The board also did not adopt or develop comprehensive, written, multiyear financial or capital plans, or a written reserve policy, or receive and review budget status reports, which could have assisted in developing and adopting more accurate budgets and planning for the village’s financial future.

An applicant for disability retirement benefits bears the burden of proving that he or she is permanently incapacitated

Petitioner, a police officer, filed separate applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as the result of injuries suffered while he was a passenger in a police car that struck a deer. 

Both applications were denied by the New York State and Local Retirement System [System] based upon a finding that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer sustained the denials and, upon administrative review, the System affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision. Petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the System's determination.

As an initial procedural matter, the Appellate Division, by majority opinion, indicated it was "unpersuaded by [Petitioner's] argument that the [System's] determination is arbitrary and capricious or lacking in substantial evidence insofar as it was based upon the review of an incomplete record that did not include certain outstanding medical records".

The decision, however, noted that "Petitioner's counsel had several opportunities to admit the outstanding medical records into evidence during the administrative hearing and instead relied upon his client's statement that the Retirement System had all of his records" and never moved the medical records into evidence despite ample opportunity to do so, including even after the Retirement System reminded him that such records were not in evidence."

Under the circumstances, the Appellate Division concluded that the Hearing Officer appropriately decided the applications on the record before it, and the System was justified in rendering the final administrative determination based upon such record.

Turning to the merits of the Systems determination, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Hannon v DiNapoli, 226 AD3d 1122 and other decisions, pointed out that "[i]n connection with any application for accidental or performance of duty disability retirement benefits, the applicant bears the burden of proving that he or she is permanently incapacitated from the performance of his or her job duties".

Further, where, as here, there is conflicting medical evidence, the Appellate Division observed that the System "is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh such evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over another", and its review of the System's determination "is limited to ascertaining whether it is supported by substantial evidence".

Although the said that in its view, although there was medical evidence that could support a contrary conclusion, the rational testimony and opinion of a witness based upon his examination of Petitioner and review of Petitioner's medical records provides substantial evidence to support the determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties and the System was free to credit that witnesses' opinion over that of Ppetitioner's treating physician.

Accordingly, the majority said it found "no reason to disturb [the System's] determination denying [Petitioner's] applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits".

Garry, P.J., dissenting, Mackey, J. concurring in the dissent, said "We do not disagree that the Hearing Officer acted well within his authority at every stage of these proceedings, nor that [Petitioner's] counsel bears primary responsibility for the state of the record. However, arbitrary and capricious review is not concerned with fault. The inquiry is whether the administrative entity's ultimate determination was rational — that is, whether it was made with a sound basis in reason and with due regard to the relevant facts (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Here, [the System] rendered a final merits determination while fully aware that extensive, post-application surgical records — directly bearing on several sites of injury — existed, had been repeatedly referenced in this proceeding, were in the possession of the New York State and Local Retirement System and had never been evaluated. Put another way, the determination being upheld here is not arbitrary because the Hearing Officer acted inappropriately; it is arbitrary because the ultimate question of permanent incapacity was resolved on a record that was universally understood to not reflect the facts and underlying medical reality of [Petitioner's] conditions. In light of these foundational concerns as to the substantive reliability of the determination before us, albeit resulting from counsel's abysmal performance with respect to the outstanding records, we respectfully dissent".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's majority's decision and the minority's dissent.