Decision No. 18,868 Appeal of certain action by the Board of Education of a School District concerning "shared decision-making". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.
Nov 3, 2026
Nov 2, 2026
New York State's Workers' Compensation Board offers NYS Workers' Compensation 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers on November 3, 2026
On November 3, 2026, the New York State's Workers' Compensation Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present a program focusing on the basics of the New York State Workers’ Compensation System, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. This presentation will also cover:
- Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
- How to file a claim
- How to get help with your claim if needed
- Tips and best practices for injured workers
The session is free and there will be time at the end for questions.
Important: When you register, you will automatically receive a confirmation email that includes a calendar invite. Be sure to add the invite to your calendar so you have a reminder! If you don’t receive the confirmation email in your inbox, please check your junk or spam folder.
for the Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. session.
New York City Department of Education's rejection of an application for security clearance held irrational under the circumstances
A New York State Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking annulment of a determination by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] resulting in an administratively closing Plaintiff's application for a security clearance.
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, reinstated Plaintiff's Article 78 proceeding and granted the Plaintiff's petition to the extent of annulling DOE's determination and directed DOE to process Plaintiff's security clearance application. This decision of the Appellate Division ultimately resulted in Plaintiff and DOE entering into a settlement agreement resolving* the prior Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was subsequently nominated for appointment to a position by an independent agency that provided such services to DOE. Such employment, however, was contingent on Plaintiff receiving security clearance with DOE. Plaintiff was then notified that her application was "administratively closed with no determination made," explaining that she had been "nominated for a position as a Speech Pathologist with independent providers" and that based on the terms of the settlement agreement she was not permitted to work as an independent provider. Petitioner challenged DOE's determination by filing a second CPLR Article 78 action.
It was undisputed that Plaintiff was nominated for a position by Salveo, an agency providing such services to DOE. The Appellate Division, rejecting DOE's claim that Plaintiff had admitted her role to be that of an independent provider, explained that DOE misread Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff, said the Appellate Division, used the phrase to describe the ambiguity at issue and did not concede DOE's interpretation, concluded that DOE's determination rested on its misreading of the settlement agreement.
* The Appellate Division's decision notes that DOE retained "the right to deny [Petitioner] clearance . . . for any reason, other than the reasons that gave rise to the [prior] litigation."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Oct 31, 2026
Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 30, 2026
Cybersecurity on a Tight Government Budget? Explore approaches to strengthening cyber defenses without stretching already limited government resources. Learn More
States offer billions in incentives to support economic development each year Focusing on job training and other services instead of cash could improve the cost-benefit ratio, according to a new paper. Read More
Webinar: Make your first Year of Brownfields Funding count Learn practical strategies to manage funding effectively, meet EPA requirements and support future funding opportunities. Register today
Twenty-two states have adopted laws expanding opportunities for accessory dwelling units But passing laws doesn't always mean more homes get built. Read More
A New Era for Justice Information Sharing This paper explores how cloud, AI and other technological advancements are creating new opportunities for secure justice information sharing. DOWNLOAD
Close the Utility and Local Government Workforce Gap See how intelligent payment tools and digital self-service options can handle routine billing and customer service tasks, giving government staff more time for work that requires their expertise.
DOWNLOADHow the City of Newport News Is Raising the Bar for Open Government Facing a surge in public records requests, Newport News centralized FOIA management to improve transparency, streamline compliance and strengthen public access to government information. READ NOW
Modernizing CJIS Compliance: A Path to Secure Information Sharing and AI Readiness This guide breaks down what agencies need to know about CJIS Security Policy Version 6.1, including new requirements for encryption, vulnerability management, incident reporting and information-sharing agreements. DOWNLOAD
Oct 30, 2026
Plaintiff's failure to follow the MTA's procedures for appealing alleged denials of Freedom of Information Law requests filed defeats his claim of constructive denial of such requests
The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court had properly dismissed the Plaintiff's several petitions insofar as Plaintiff sought review of alleged constructive denials of the dozens of purported Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] requests.
MTA Plaintiff had not consistently submitted his FOIL requests through a MTA's online portal or by physical mail to the MTA's FOIL team. Even when instructed to submit all his additional FOIL requests using the MTA online portal, Plaintiff declined to do so and then failed to follow the MTA's procedure for appealing alleged "constructive denials" of purported FOIL requests.
Supreme Court also denied Plaintiff's motions to amend Plaintiff's amended petition and motion for a default judgment, and dismissed the instant proceeding Plaintiff had filed pursuant to CPLR Article 78.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings, noting that:
1. Plaintiff's original FOIL request, submitted February 18, 2025, was appropriately denied and leave to amend was providently denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
2. Plaintiff's February 18, 2025 FOIL request was under consideration when Plaintiff commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding on June 6, 2025 and when Plaintiff filed an amended petition on August 14, 2025; and
3. Plaintiff moved to further amend after Plaintiff received a partial response to his FOIL request and was informed that additional efforts to locate FOIL documents responsive were ongoing.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had properly dismissed Plaintiff's amended petition insofar as Plaintiff sought review of alleged constructive denials of the dozens of purported FOIL requests Plaintiff had sent in April 2025 as those requests were not properly submitted to the MTA, which provides for submission of FOIL requests either through an online portal or by physical mail to the MTA's FOIL team*.
Even when instructed to submit all his additional FOIL requests using the MTA online portal, Plaintiff declined and then Plaintiff failed to follow the MTA's procedure for appealing constructive denials of these purported requests.
Finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding these FOIL requests.
In addition, the Appellate Division observed that Supreme Court had "appropriately denied [Plaintiff's] motion for a default judgment, as [Plaintiff had] moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending".
* The Appellate Division's decision notes that Petitioner "appropriately submitted his first request through the MTA online portal and by physical mail, but he failed to send his remaining requests by either of these methods".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Join the New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division for its 1st Annual Educational Seminar
|
|
| A premier two-day program featuring timely updates, practical guidance, and in-depth discussions on the issues shaping New York workers’ compensation law. Topics include: |
- Current Trends in NYS Workers’ Compensation
- Litigation Strategy & Effective Hearing Protocol
- Appellate Division, 3rd Department Panel
- Section 32 Settlements & Stipulations
- Permanency & Labor Market Attachment
- Medical Causation & Benefits
- A View From the Workers Comp Board
- Kids Chance of New York Scholarship Presentation
- Advocate for Injured Workers
- Case Law Update/Appeals
- Third Party Settlements – Liens & Offsets
- Practicing with Professionalism
|
Oct 29, 2026
Selected New York State Education Law §§306 or 310 administrative decisions by New York State's Commissioner of Education
Decision No. 18,854 Application for the removal of a trustee of the Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Middletown. Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner of Education posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,864 Appeal from the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Mount Vernon discontinuing the probationary appointment of an employee. Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner of Education posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,865 Appeal of an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Board of Trustees of the Wyandanch Public Library from an action by the Library's Board of Trustees regarding such election. Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner of Education posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,867 Appeal of Young Advocate For Fair Education concerning certain actions by the New York City Department of Education addressing the substantial equivalency of certain properties and the development of certain remedial education action plans. Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner of Education posted on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)