ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Apr 15, 2026

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

Audit reports for the following local governments and school districts were posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller on April 14, 2026.New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026 

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the reports posted on the Internet.


City of Mechanicville – Separation Payments (Saratoga County) City officials did not ensure the accuracy of employee separation payments. As a result, three employees received questionable or unsupported payments totaling $15,766 of vacation payouts due to miscalculations and an ineligible retirement incentive. Specifically, auditors determined that three payments totaling $37,118 were inconsistent with the city’s handbook and collective bargaining agreements, which may have resulted in the overpayments. Auditors also found that officials did not have adequate policies or written procedures in place to guide how separation payments should be calculated, approved and reviewed.


City of Mechanicville – Procurement (Saratoga County) Auditors found that officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with policy, statutory requirements or good business practices. Officials made purchases without proper oversight, did not maintain records and did not consistently use a competitive process. Of the sample of 35 purchases totaling $2.26 million reviewed, auditors identified 24 purchases totaling approximately $760,000 that did not comply with the procurement policy or statutory requirements. While the city’s procurement policy was inadequate and inconsistent, it did require department heads to verify that funds were available before making purchases. However, the finance office did not have updated accounting records. Consequently, department heads made purchases without confirming there were available budget appropriations, which led to financial discrepancies and inefficiencies.


City of Mechanicville – Financial Oversight (Saratoga County) The mayor and city officials did not provide oversight of financial operations. As a result, the council could not fully assess the city’s financial condition or make informed decisions. The commissioner did not maintain current accounting records or ensure financial reports were accurate. Bank reconciliations were either not completed or contained large, unresolved variances. Also, the commissioner did not submit two years of annual financial reports (AFRs) to DiNapoli’s office in a timely manner, as required by law. The mayor also did not establish formal procedures to monitor financial reporting or verify the accuracy of accounting records.


Village of Sherburne – Budgeting (Chenango County) The board adopted budgets that underestimated revenues in the general fund and overestimated appropriations in the general, water and sewer funds. As a result, the board levied more taxes than were needed to fund the village’s operations. The board also generated unplanned operating surpluses totaling approximately $1.1 million despite having planned for operating deficits totaling $1.3 million. As a result, none of the appropriated fund balance was needed or used. In addition, the unrestricted fund balance increased by approximately $1.1 million in the general, water and sewer funds. Lastly, the budgets for the 2022-23 through 2025-26 fiscal years did not comply with state law or guidance from DiNapoli’s office and lacked sufficient detail, which reduced transparency and limited effective financial planning.


Village of Victory – Records and Reports (Saratoga County) The clerk-treasurer did not maintain accurate and complete accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly reports or file AFRs in a timely manner, which limited the board’s ability to monitor financial operations. The clerk-treasurer also did not properly prepare bank reconciliations or budget status reports, which lacked pertinent information. As of Sept. 10, 2025, AFRs were filed between 41 and 1,322 days late.


Village of Youngstown – Employee Benefits and Payroll (Niagara County) Village officials did not maintain accurate leave records or ensure payroll payments were properly approved and supported. Employees received payouts and used leave without proper authorization, including $9,802 in unsupported payments, 1,524 unapproved leave hours and 313 compensatory hours accrued without authorization. In addition, village officials made inaccurate payroll payments totaling approximately $2,500.


Village of Churchville – Procurement (Monroe County) Village officials did not consistently solicit competition in accordance with statutory requirements or its procurement policy. Of the approximately $1.4 million in goods and services reviewed, auditors determined officials did not seek competition for purchases totaling $664,748. Specifically, village officials did not always issue requests for proposals, ensure the village received the New York State Office of General Services contract price in lieu of competitively bidding, or obtain the minimum number of written quotes required by the village’s procurement policy. For two purchases totaling $31,397, officials did not obtain any written quotes. In addition, the village’s procurement policy did not include details on when board approval was required prior to making purchases, and officials signed and approved their own purchases.


Plainville Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Onondaga County) The review assessed the Plainville Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Plainville Fire District – Board Oversight, released in October 2021. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations and exceeded its authority by allowing the district treasurer to pay all recurring expenditures without the board’s prior review or approval. To help the board ensure that it provides adequate oversight of fire district operations, the audit contained eight recommendations. The board fully implemented four recommendations, partially implemented three and did not implement one. Until all recommendations are addressed, the board cannot ensure district assets are appropriately safeguarded.


South Orangetown Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Rockland County) The review assessed the South Orangetown Central School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, South Orangetown Central School District – Network User Accounts, released in August 2022. The audit determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit report contained four recommendations. While district officials fully implemented one recommendation, they only partially implemented the remaining three recommendations. As a result, the district’s network continued to have increased risk for unauthorized access, misuse or data loss.


Woodbourne Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Sullivan County) The review assessed the Woodbourne Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Woodbourne Fire District – Board Oversight, released in December 2023. The audit determined that the board and treasurer did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. The audit contained 10 recommendations. The district fully implemented three recommendations, partially implemented four, and did not implement three recommendations. Until all are addressed, the board cannot ensure financial operations are properly monitored or assets are safeguarded.

###



Apr 14, 2026

Terms of a collective bargaining agreement and a memorandum of understanding required the exhaustion of administrative remedies

Plaintiff, an assistant principal, commenced this action alleging that the New York City Department of Education [Employer] retaliated against her after she reported a violation of Social Services Law §413 by her then-principal and that she was constructively discharged from her position by Employer.

Noting that a public employee may be required to arbitrate such a claim where the employee "is subject to dismissal or other disciplinary action under a final and binding arbitration provision" or where the employee "is subject to a collectively negotiated agreement [CBA] which contains provisions preventing an employer from taking adverse personnel actions and which contains a final and binding arbitration provision to resolve alleged violations of such provisions of the agreement".

Pursuant to the terms of the relevant CBA between Plaintiff's union and the Employer, grievances which are not resolved after a two-step internal process must be submitted to arbitration. 

The CBA defines a "grievance," and a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Plaintiff's union and Employer, which "by its terms became part and parcel of the CBA", added an antiretaliation provision that provides, among other things, "The harassment, intimidation, retaliation and discrimination of any kind because an employee in good faith raises a concern or reports a violation or suspected violation of any Department policy, rule/law/regulation or contractual provision ... is prohibited."

Observing that the MOA was incorporated into the CBA, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's claims of retaliation in violation of the MOA's antiretaliation provision constitutes a grievance within the meaning of the CBA.

The Appellate Division held that Plaintiff "was required to grieve her complaint before commencing this action" and that Supreme Court had properly granted the Employer's "motion to dismiss based on [Plaintiff's] failure to exhaust her administrative remedies".

The Appellate Division also noted Plaintiff's "course of conduct in demanding arbitration, citing ... the CBA's grievance procedures and the MOA's antiretaliation provision,  confirms that the arbitration of the [Plaintiff's] claim was required".

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


Apr 13, 2026

New York Data and AI Summit to be held in Albany, New York May 14, 2026

As data and AI continue to reshape how governments operate, this summit brings together public-sector leaders and technology partners to explore how better data and smarter tools can improve decision-making, collaboration and services for New York’s communities. 

View the full agenda and join the New York Data & AI Summit on May 14, 2026, at the Albany New York Marriott Hotel for a day of practical insights and peer-driven discussions focused on:

    Advancing AI initiatives across government 

    Using data to strengthen citizen services

    Building governance frameworks for responsible AI adoption

    Real-world case studies from local leaders

Register now to make certain you secure your spot!

N.B. Open to Public Sector only. No charge to participate.

This announcement has been posted on the Internet by NYPPL pro bono.

In an administrative appeal to the New York State Commissioner of Education the petitioner had the burden of proof

New York State Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa dismissed an appeal concerning the election of a district’s school board [Board] election and budget vote in which the Petitioner [Appellant] was a candidate for a position on the board.  

After the polls closed, Appellant requested to view the original voting machine receipts and inspect the absentee ballots.  Appellant was advised to submit a Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) to obtain these documents. The Appellant submitted such a request on May 21, to which the Board responded on June 2. 

Appellant, contending that he was denied the opportunity to inspect the voting machine receipt and absentee ballots on the night of the election, and asserted the that the absentee ballots were counted “behind closed doors, out of view of the candidates and the public” and asked the Commissioner to find that the Board had violated Education Law §§2035 and 2610 to issue

1. An order compelling the release and verification of the original machine receipts; and 

2. An order invalidating the election results. 

The Board contended that Appellant's petition should be dismissed for, among other reasons, the Appellant's failure to comply with the regulations governing appeals to the Commissioner and contended that Appellant failed to establish a clear legal right to his requested relief.

The Commissioner observed that to invalidate the results of a school district election, the petitioner must either: 

(1) establish not only that irregularities occurred but also that any irregularities actually affected the outcome of the election or were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process; or

(2) demonstrate a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law.

Citing a number of earlier Decisions of Commissioners of Education, Commissioner Rosa opined that implicit in those decisions is a recognition that "it is a rare case where errors in the conduct of an election are so pervasive as to vitiate the fundamental fairness of the election" and, citing 8 NYCRR 275.10, observed that in an appeal to the Commissioner, "a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief'.

Finding that Appellant had not "met his burden of proof" as there was no evidence that Appellant submitted a request to inspect the voting machine tallies and absentee ballots on the night of the election, and the Board subsequently responded to such a request in a timely manner.

Observing that the Appellant "provides no other evidence to suggest that [the Board] violated the Education Law or that any irregularities occurred that affected the outcome of the election", the Commissioner ruled that "the appeal must be dismissed", noting the ruling in Appeal of Crenshaw, 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,353 and other decisions of Commissioners of Education.

Click HERE to access the decision of Commissioner of Education in the instant matter posted on the Internet.


Apr 11, 2026

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 10, 2026

Navigating Dash Cams: A Guide for Union Engagement Navigating union concerns around dash cams? This guide shows public sector leaders how to build trust, address privacy head-on, and create fair policies that support both safety and morale. DOWNLOAD

Fueling Transportation: Safety, Security and Savings with Data Explore how transportation agencies can harness data to improve safety, strengthen security and drive measurable cost savings. This case study highlights how Caltrans modernized its operations by unifying maintenance, permitting and asset management systems.   DOWNLOAD

AI Compliance 2026: Policy Was the Easy Part Explore why compliance is more than rules and how governments can implement AI responsibly. READ NOW

Modernizing and Funding Cybersecurity in the Age of AI This paper explores how state and local governments can modernize cybersecurity strategies to keep pace with rapidly evolving, AI-driven threats. DOWNLOAD

The H.R. 1 Mandate: Modernizing Medicaid and SNAP H.R. 1 adds substantial administrative obligations to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Learn why automation is essential to handle growing workloads and complexity. 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

Securing the Reset: How Idaho Strengthened Security and Governance This case study explores how transitioning to a FedRAMP-authorized environment enabled greater accountability, streamlined operations and enhanced protection of sensitive data, while reducing the burden of legacy systems. DOWNLOAD 

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Why Identity Is Now Core HHS Infrastructure For HHS agencies, identity verification is no longer a support support function. This paper explains how modern identity platforms give agencies a consistent, risk-based way to verify new applicants and returning beneficiaries. DOWNLOAD

To access Justia's list of its Most Popular Employment Law Blogs Click HERE

Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, 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