Court orders terminated probationary employee's reinstatement after employer unable to show the dismissal was made in good faith

Plaintiff initiated an CPLR Article 78 preceding challenged the Nassau County Sheriff's Department's [Department] decision terminating his employment during Plaintiff's probationary employment as a correction officer. Plaintiff had alleged, among other things, that he was terminated in bad faith after he complained about being assigned excessive overtime hours.

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition, in effect annulling the Department's decision to terminate Plaintiff during his probationary period. The Department appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Citing Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 AD3d 786, Appellate Division noted that the employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law*. However, said the Appellate Division, "The petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof of the alleged bad faith, the violation of statutory or decisional law, or the constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose", citing Matter of Capece v Schultz, 117 AD3d 1045 and Matter of Young v City of New York, 221 AD3d 721.

The Appellate Division held that the Plaintiff had "met his burden of demonstrating that the determination to terminate his probationary employment was made in bad faith" by establishing that his termination of probationary employment followed a complaint he made regarding being assigned excessive overtime hours and the purported failure of the Sheriff's to comply with Rule 20 of the Sheriff's Department Rules and Regulations, which requires equal distribution of overtime, noting that the Department "failed to establish, or even adequately allege, that the termination of the [Plaintiff's] probationary employment was made in good faith".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "properly granted the [Plaintiff's] petition and, in effect, annulled the [Department's] determination".

* In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

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

New York State Comptroller issues local government and school audits and budget reviews

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits and budget reviews were issued on April 17, 2026

Click on text highlighted in color to access audits issued

Audits 

South Hornell Fire Protection Company, Inc. – Disbursements (Steuben County) The board did not ensure disbursements were supported, appropriate or authorized. Weak bylaws, policies and procedures, including debit card safeguards, meant limited oversight. Because the recording secretary generally did not record membership’s authorization of disbursements during monthly meetings in the meeting minutes, 300 disbursements totaling $297,853 lacked documented authorization. Auditors also found 63 disbursements totaling $126,012 that lacked sufficient support to determine appropriateness.

Town of Plattekill – Information Technology (IT) (Ulster County) The board and supervisor did not adequately manage user accounts or implement key IT controls. For example, unused accounts assigned to some former employees remained active for at least seven years. Officials did not adopt a breach notification policy, as required by law, and did not adopt an IT contingency plan for unexpected disruptions or disasters. Officials also did not enter into a written contract with the town’s IT service provider or require employees to take IT security awareness training. Other sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Eagle Mills Fire District No.1 – Records and Reports (Rensselaer County) The board did not monitor financial activity or ensure required records and reports were maintained. The treasurer did not record annual budgets for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 into the central accounting system, necessary for generating statements of operations with budget-to-actual comparisons. The board also failed to have the required annual independent audit of the district’s books since fiscal year 2018. Lastly, the treasurer has not prepared or filed the fiscal year end 2019 through 2024 annual financial reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required by law.

Cicero Volunteer Fire Department – Financial Activities (Onondaga County) Officials did not ensure financial activity was properly recorded, reported or that funds were safeguarded. Auditors identified significant errors and unrecorded transactions. For example, the treasurer recorded $216,088 that was received for a building lease payment twice, which overstated the department’s cash and revenue. The treasurer also did not prepare accurate bank reconciliations, issue customer receipts for collections, and did not deposit collections in a timely manner. The treasurer also did not prepare and submit the annual report for foreign fire insurance tax proceeds to the board and membership and to DiNapoli’s office, as required by law.

Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School – Information Technology (Nassau County) Auditors found that school officials did not implement sufficient controls to protect IT systems and data from unauthorized access, use or loss. Procedures for managing and monitoring user accounts were not established, resulting in 51 unnecessary accounts remaining active. Officials also did not monitor employee internet use. Auditors reviewed internet histories of 14 school employee computers and determined that nine employees used the computers to access websites for personal use, including a user who conducted personal business activities. Lastly, the director of technology was unable to provide the documentation related to the monitoring of the IT vendor’s compliance with the consulting agreement.

Arkport Hose Company No. 1, Inc. – Treasurer (Steuben County) The executive committee lacked reliable information to manage the company’s financial activity because the treasurer did not properly deposit, record or report company funds. The treasurer did not deposit revenues totaling $5,191 in a company bank account within three days of receipt, as required by company bylaws. The treasurer also did not maintain adequate supporting documentation for 95 transactions totaling $55,100, accurately record 48 transactions totaling $21,528, or obtain approval for 37 disbursements totaling $15,951. In addition, the treasurer did not prepare bank reconciliations or provide adequate monthly or annual reports to the board and membership. Lastly, the treasurer did not file the annual form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service, putting the company’s not-for-profit status at risk.

Town of Clermont – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Columbia County) Although the board conducted an audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, the board did not maintain any supporting documentation to show the extent of the work performed or the results of the audit. The supervisor did not prepare and file the 2022 through 2024 annual financial reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required by law. Furthermore, the supervisor provided the board with incomplete monthly financial reports and did not ensure board-approved hourly rates were used to pay the highway department employees.

Budget Reviews

South Country Central School District – Budget Review (Suffolk County) Following the district’s Oct. 22, 2025 disclosure that an unplanned deficit occurred during the 2024-25 fiscal year, stakeholders requested DiNapoli’s office provide an independent review of the district’s finances. The district is on track to incur a 2025-26 fiscal year budget deficit of approximately $8.7 million due to inaccurate estimates in the adopted budget even after accounting for the cost-savings measures, including spending freezes and personnel layoffs. In addition, the district has no available surplus fund balance to mitigate this budgetary deficit. The district reported an unassigned general fund balance deficit of $1.8 million as of June 30, 2025. If current operating trends continue, auditors project the district will have a fiscal year-end deficit of approximately $10.5 million. Finally, district officials indicated the district will need to borrow $6 million to balance the 2026-27 budget. While deficit financing can provide immediate relief, any such borrowing would most likely increase the overall deficit and create future funding gaps due to the district’s reliance on debt to pay for operating  expenses.

Wyandanch Union Free School District – Budget Review (Suffolk County) State law as of 2020 authorizes the district to issue serial bonds in an amount not to exceed $4.5 million to liquidate the accumulated deficit in the district’s general fund as of June 30, 2019. Municipalities and school districts that have been authorized to issue obligations to fund operating deficits are required by law to submit their budget to the State Comptroller each year. Auditors determined that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the district’s proposed budget are reasonable and that the district’s proposed budget complies with the tax levy limit. The budget review did not include any recommendations.

Village of Suffern – Budget Review (Rockland County) State law authorizes the village to issue debt not to exceed $5 million to liquidate the accumulated deficits in the village’s general, water, sewer and capital projects funds as of May 31, 2015. Auditors determined that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable, and that the village’s tentative budget complies with the tax levy limit.

###

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 17, 2026

City & State published an op-ed contribution by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The item addresses the need for companies to be transparent about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is impacting layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term growth.  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

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

Plan, Act, Recover: Disaster Preparedness in the Public Sector This research report reveals how state and local leaders are using real-time data, AI, and better communication tools to respond to disasters faster and recover stronger. See what 250 public sector leaders say they need to improve. 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 

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

AI Is Reshaping Criminal Justice. The Real Question Is How We Govern It AI can improve efficiency and fairness — but only with strong oversight and accountability.   READ NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

AI in the Room: Making Public Collaboration Smarter, Not Harder Learn how AI-powered meeting tools improve accessibility, collaboration and engagement for hybrid public sector teams. WATCH NOW

ITSM Complexity to Clarity: Modernizing with No-Code and AI Learn how to bring clarity to ITSM complexity through no-code automation, AI and modern ITSM strategies. WATCH NOW  

Content + AI: The Future of Public Service Strategies to help government leaders scale secure, compliant AI solutions. WATCH NOW 

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW 

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Employee terminated after being found guilty of having posted items that featured biased and discriminatory language and images on Facebook

In this CPLR Article 78 action Plaintiff sought judicial review of a revised determination of the New York State Office of Court Administration's Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adoption of the report and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and recommended the termination the Petitioner's employment as a court officer. 

Plaintiff had been employed as a court officer by the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] for approximately 14 years and it was alleged Plaintiff had engaged in specified acts of misconduct when Plaintiff shared 26 posts on Facebook that featured biased and discriminatory language and images. Plaintiff denied the charge.

At the conclusion of Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report finding Plaintiff guilty of each specified act of misconduct and recommended that the Plaintiff be terminated. The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendations and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge issued a revised determination in which he again adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendation and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. 

Plaintiff then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge's revised determination. 

The Appellate Division, in its decision, noted:

1. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence" (see Matter of Afolayan v Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 229 AD3d 698]";

2. "Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact", which is a "minimal standard", demanding only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable; and

3. "Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently".

The Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's alleged misconduct was supported by substantial evidence as "OCA demonstrated that the biased nature of the [Plaintiff's] comments, which were connected to a public Facebook profile that identified him as a Sergeant with UCS, and violated the internal rules and regulations, as well as the ethical codes, of UCS". The Appellate Division then said "given the public facing nature of the [Plaintiff's] position in a system that requires fairness and equality, the administrative record supports the conclusion that the bias illustrated by the [Plaintiff's] posts negatively impacted UCS's ability to maintain neutrality and serve vulnerable populations".

Addressing Plaintiff's contention that the revised disciplinary determination violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech, the Appellate Division opined that OCA had met its burden of establishing that discipline arising out of the Plaintiff's otherwise protected activity was justified. Further, the Appellate Division opined that the revised determination did not violate the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, "because the prohibition on discriminatory speech was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable to all UCS employees".

Turning to the disciplinary penalty imposed on Plaintiff, the Appellate Division noted that such review "is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" and the administrative penalty imposed "must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The Appellate Division concluded that, contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the "penalty of termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", confirmed the revised disciplinary determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, citing Matter of Phelps v State of N.Y.—Unified Ct. Sys., 208 AD3 880 and Sekul v City of Poughkeepsie, 195 AD3d 622.

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

Grouping students with disabilities for purposes of instruction

On April 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, certified the question set out below to the New York State Court of Appeals:

“When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under §200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE  may pick?” 

The Court of Appeals responded, concluding that the required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] §200.6(h)(4) represent alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the described levels of management needs and disabilities.

In light of Court of Appeals' response, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court, holding:

Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education (including resource room, special class, consultant teacher services, integrated co-teaching and related services groups) must be grouped by similarity of individual needs in accordance with the four need areas of:

• Academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics
• Social Development
• Physical Development
• Management Needs 

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's ruling posted on the Internet.