Thank you Veterans, and Veterans in Training.

New York State Departments and Agencies and other New York governmental entity audits posted on the Internet

On August 7, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

New York City Public Schools – College Readiness (Follow-Up) (2025-F-12)

Nearly half of all students who complete high school and go to college require remedial courses, and nearly half never graduate. In general, college readiness refers to the set of skills, behaviors, and knowledge a high school student should have before enrollment in their first year of college, as well as the ability for high school students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills required to successfully complete freshman-level college coursework. A prior audit, issued in October 2022, found that, overall, New York City Public Schools (NYCPS, formerly the New York City Department of Education) should do more to prepare students to be college ready regardless of the post-secondary pathway they decide to take, and this preparation should begin much earlier in students’ school years. Specifically, for a cohort of 71,210 high school students expected to graduate by August 2019, as many as 23% did not graduate on time. NYCPS officials have made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing all four recommendations.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Managed Care Provider Networks (2023-S-20)
Managed care organizations (MCOs) are required to submit their provider network to the Department of Health (DOH) quarterly, and this information is used to generate a deficiency report identifying areas where the MCO lacks enough providers in certain counties. MCOs are given an opportunity to dispute deficiencies and provide supporting information to have the deficiency removed and the remaining deficiencies are compiled into a quarterly Statement of Agreement for each MCO. Auditors determined that, in many instances, DOH did not follow its internal review guidance, Statements of Agreement contained inaccurate deficiencies, and deficiency statuses were not always updated, so it was unclear whether DOH took the additional steps needed to complete its quarterly network adequacy review. Auditors also found that DOH does not provide MCOs with adequate guidance regarding the deficiency review process or out-of-network provider payments, which may expose the Medicaid program to increased expenses. Further, despite having access to the Statement of Agreement data, DOH officials do not use this information to identify patterns or areas for improvement or to provide any other oversight of the network adequacy process.

Transforming Into Construction & Development (2023-S-49)
The Public Authorities Law required the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to “develop and complete a personnel and reorganization plan” by June 30, 2019. According to the Transformation plan adopted by the MTA Board on July 24, 2019, “the MTA’s transformation seeks to change the fundamental ways in which the Agencies do business in order to drive improved service levels for the customers, process efficiencies and cost reductions.” At the December 2019 Board Meeting, MTA Capital Construction was renamed and reorganized to Construction & Development Company (C&D). Auditors found that, although C&D provided evidence that it had been organizationally transformed, sufficient time had not passed to comprehensively assess whether the change delivered capital projects faster, better, or cheaper, as was its plan. The data that was available was at times incomplete or insufficiently supported, and a definition of what constituted cost savings was not clearly defined and included some questionable items.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Payments for Certain Third-Party Cost-Sharing Claims (2024-S-1)
When Medicaid members have other sources of health care coverage (third-party insurers), Medicaid is considered the payer of last resort and, as such, providers are required to coordinate benefits with third-party insurers before billing Medicaid for services. After processing a claim from a provider, the third-party insurer issues a statement to the provider, explaining the reason for any adjustments made to the claim amount. Claim Adjustment Reason Codes (CARCs) and group codes (such as PR, patient responsibility, and CO, contractual obligation) on statements detail the reason an adjustment was made to a claim and assign financial responsibility for the unpaid portion of the claim balance. CARC 45 occurs when the charge exceeds the maximum allowable fee and claims with a CARC PR 45 are currently configured to pay in eMedNY (DOH’s automated Medicaid claims processing and payment system), while claims with a CARC CO 45 are not. Auditors identified 69,166 claims totaling payments of almost $10.2 million billed with a PR 45. They sampled 58 of these claims billed with a PR 45 and identified billing issues on each claim that resulted in Medicaid overpayments of $1,778,546.

New York City Department of Social Services – New York City Department of Homeless Services: Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Institute for Community Living, Inc. (Follow-Up) (2025-F-16)
In March 2014, the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), an administrative unit of the New York City Department of Social Services, contracted with the Institute for Community Living, Inc. (ICL), a City-based not-for-profit organization, to provide temporary housing and other services at its 200-bed Tillary Street Women’s Shelter for the period from December 2013 to December 2021. A prior audit, issued in September 2022, found DHS did not complete required expenditure reviews or ensure that year-end closeouts were completed in a timely manner. Consequently, for the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, auditors identified $2,376,462, or 9.7% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements. DHS officials made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s nine audit recommendations, one was implemented, five were partially implemented, and three were not implemented.

Office of Mental Health – Oversight of Kendra’s Law (Follow-Up) (2025-F-6)
In August 1999, Kendra’s Law was enacted, creating a statutory framework for court-ordered Assisted Outpatient Treatment to ensure that individuals with severe mental illness and a history of hospitalizations or violence participate in community-based services appropriate to their needs. Assisted Outpatient Treatment implementation is a joint responsibility and collaboration among the Office of Mental Health (OMH), its five regional Field Offices, and local mental health authorities in 57 counties and New York City. A prior audit, issued in February 2024, found areas in need of improvement, including length of Assisted Outpatient Treatment investigations and related information-sharing, initiation of Assisted Outpatient Treatment services, the quality and completeness of information about significant events and how that information is shared, lapsing Assisted Outpatient Treatment orders, and local mental health authorities’ reported reasons for Assisted Outpatient Treatment non-renewals. OMH officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the report’s six recommendations, three have been implemented, two have been partially implemented, and one has not been implemented.

 

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending November 7, 2025

A Government Leader’s Guide to Meeting Website Accessibility and Compliance Requirements Meet DOJ mandates with CivicPlus: ensure ADA compliance and better serve all residents. Learn More

Adopting Better, Stronger Identity Verification This case study explains how using a modern identity platform with AI and machine learning can improve constituent experience and crack down on increasingly sophisticated fraud. READ MORE

Future Forward Government A space created for state and local IT leaders and decision-makers who are charting the course of tomorrow's public sector.  EXPLORE

Where Generative AI Makes Sense in the Public Sector This guide helps government and education leaders identify where generative AI can deliver measurable impact--from improving service delivery to unlocking smarter decision-making. Explore key use cases, data strategies, and practical steps to move beyond pilots and build secure, scalable applications that align with policy, budget, and mission goals. DOWNLOAD

How Do Teams Restore Connectivity When Every Minute Counts? A new docufilm explores how broadband providers, utility crews, and government agencies must work in lockstep to restore critical services after disaster strikes. Watch Now

Build a Self-Improving Cyber Workforce Today Explore how states can tackle the cyber skills gap with ecosystem-based talent development. READ MORE

From Risk Management to Enterprise Leadership: Cybersecurity in Government Today's CISOs aren't just protecting systems - they're leading enterprise-wide change. This paper explores how cybersecurity leaders in state and local government are stepping out of the shadows to become strategic enablers, guiding everything from AI adoption to cloud modernization.  DOWNLOAD

Hunting Ghost Students California's community colleges lost more than $13 million last year to "ghost students" - a form of identity fraud designed to exploit financial aid programs. LEARN MORE

New school audits issued by the New York State Comptroller

On November 5, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli today announced the school audits listed below were issued.

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

Exploration Elementary Charter School for Science and Technology – Non-Payroll Disbursements (Monroe County) 

School officials did not ensure that disbursements were adequately supported, for appropriate purposes, and reviewed and approved before payment. 

The audit also determined that 112 disbursements and credit charges totaling $504,506 did not have an itemized invoice and a documented school purpose. Officials said they purchased 300 gift cards each worth $100 (totaling $30,975) for students for achieving certain grades on state exams but the cards were given to 19 teachers and support staff based on student grades. 

In addition, the operations manager’s responsibilities were not adequately segregated, and she was able to make purchases, prepare checks, sign checks with a board member’s stamp and modify or delete data in the financial software. 

Finally, the school’s former operations manager was arrested in December 2024 for the alleged theft of $1,100 in gift cards. On July 2, 2025, she pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and repaid the school.

Greenburgh Central School District – Procurement (Westchester County) 

District officials generally procured time and materials contracts in a cost-efficient manner using competitive bids or the required exception to the competitive bidding process. However, district officials did not confirm that the goods and services billed by the vendor and paid by the district were accurate and complied with the applicable bid specifications or, in some circumstances, the terms of the contract. Because of this, officials overpaid three vendors a total of $55,015. 

In addition, officials did not ensure all vendor invoices were properly supported and audited before payment. As a result, there is an increased risk that paid claims may not be for legitimate expenditures.

Elmira City School District – Capital Projects (Chemung County) 

Although district officials complied with competitive bidding requirements and certain aspects of the district’s procurement policies, they did not seek competition for two professional service contracts related to the 2020 Capital and Energy Performance Improvements Project. 

Auditors reviewed a total of 60 contracts and 12 change orders associated with the contracts that either exceeded the competitive bidding requirements set forth in state law or were subject to the district’s procurement policies and procedures. The total cost of these contracts and change orders was approximately $62.9 million. Of these costs, $7.3 million was paid to two vendors through contracts for professional services that were not let in accordance with the district’s procurement policy that requires the district to use a request for proposals process.

Jasper-Troupsburg Central School District – Emergency Drills (Steuben County)

During the regular school year, district officials must conduct a minimum of 12 evacuation and lockdown drills for each building and three bus drills for each bus to provide staff and students with the training necessary to respond appropriately in an emergency. 

District officials did not conduct all required drills or conduct all drills within the required time frames and officials could not support that they met all drill requirements. Officials also did not file the required state Education Department annual certification for bus drills or properly notify parents of drills. 

Without adequate emergency instruction and training, district officials cannot ensure that staff and students are prepared for emergencies.

###

Controverting a claim that the employee contracted COVID19 while working at the worksite

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board [Board] had reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Claimant was not eligible for workers' compensation benefits related to contracting COID-19. In so doing the Board reasoned that Claimant's public-facing job exposed him to an elevated risk of contracting the disease.

The School District and its workers' compensation carrier [jointly referred to as "Carrier"] had controverted the Claimant's application for benefits, contending, among other things, that the alleged injury did not occur in the course of Claimant's employment and that there was no causal relationship between the alleged injury and Claimant's employment, appealed the Board's ruling.

Acknowledging that "the contraction of COVID-19 in the workplace is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law", the Appellate Division explained:

a. The issue of whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact for the Board to resolve; and 

b. The Board's findings in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed. 

Opining that case law makes clear that where, as here, the injured Claimant alleges that he or she contracted COVID-19 at work, the Appellate Division said that the claimant for workers' compensation benefits "bears the burden of demonstrating either a specific exposure to COVID-19 or that COVID-19 was so prevalent in the work environment as to present an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event". As an example, the Appellate Division identified such individuals as "workers with significant contact with the public in communities with high rates of infection or workers in a workplace experiencing high rates of infection". 

Although Claimant did not allege, and the Board did not conclude, nor did the record did not support a finding that Claimant had a specific exposure to COVID-19, the Appellate Division decided that "the issue distills to whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that '[Claimant's] job as a high school custodian was a public-facing job that significantly elevated his risk of exposure to COVID-19 via contact with students'". 

Noting that the record was silent as to the rate of infection in either the school where Claimant worked or the surrounding community, the Court, considering the record as a whole, concluded that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division found:

1. The record was devoid of proof that there was a high rate of infection present in Claimant's work environment at the relevant point in time;

2. Claimant's brief encounters with a passing group of students in a corridor falls short of the degree of regular, consistent and close interaction with the public at large necessary to sustain a finding of prevalence; and

3. The record indicated that either Claimant or members of his household engaged in other in-person pursuits during the relevant time period.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Under these circumstances, the Board's finding that [Claimant's] employment exposed him to an elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19 cannot stand". Reversing the Board's decision, the Court remanded the matter "to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision".

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

When an administrative determination is made without a hearing, a court's review is limited

A police officer [Petitioner] grieved disciplinary charges served on him pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement and requested a hearing before an arbitrator. 

In lieu of the hearing, the parties agreed to resolve the matter through a consent award that provided that Petitioner would serve a 120-day suspension without pay and then be "reinstated full time and in good standing, subject to the [Police] Chief's discretion to direct an alternate assignment." As a condition of the consent award, Petitioner waived his right to a hearing on the charges. 

After Petitioner completed his suspension period, the Police Chief placed Petitioner on an alternative assignment. Petitioner later resigned from his position, indicating that he had "decided to explore other opportunities in law enforcement in lieu of continuing the current alternative assignment." In accordance with statutory obligations, the Police Chief then notified the Division of Criminal Justice Services [DCJS] that Petitioner's employment with the police department "had ended by a standard resignation".

The Police Chief subsequently advised DCJS that he had improperly characterized Petitioner's separation from employment as a standard resignation and requested that Petitioner's record be amended to reflect that Petitioner's removal had been "for cause", citing 9 NYCRR 6056.2 (h).

DCJS amended Petitioner's record to reflect that he was removed "for cause" and notified Petitioner that his basic training certification had been permanently invalidated. Petitioner then sought administrative review of DCJS determination, contending that the "for cause" designation was based upon inaccurate information since his resignation from his former employer occurred after the disciplinary matter had been fully resolved and after he had been reinstated on a full-time basis in good standing. Petitioner submitted a copy of the consent award, along with other documentation, in support of such assertion.

DCJS reviewed the matter pursuant to 9 NYCRR 6056.7, which applies when it receives information indicating "a material inaccuracy in an employer's reporting of the reason an officer ceased to serve." During that process, the Police Chief sent a letter which claimed that, during the negotiation of the consent award, "it was determined that [Petitioner] would resign as a [department[officer] ... rather than return to duty under an alternate assignment," representing that Petitioner never returned to work upon the completion of his suspension and instead used accrued leave credits until he submitted his resignation. 

The Police Chief further explained that he began investigating the decertification process after he received information that Petitioner had applied for employment with another law enforcement agency, claiming that Petitioner had agreed during the negotiation of the consent award that he would not seek employment with that particular law enforcement agency, among others, as a police officer.

Petitioner provided DCJS with copies of his attendance report and pay stubs, which demonstrated that he worked remotely on 10 days, using accrued leave for the remaining days and other relevant records indicating that he had "completed his disciplinary suspension" and was "now on full pay and benefits." Indeed, pay stubs submitted to DCJS during the administrative review process confirm that petitioner was paid by the Police Department during this period. Petitioner also provided DCJS with various exhibits from the administrative record, as well as an affidavit in which he alleged that in the course of the negotiations in furtherance of the consent award, he was advised that his certification would remain intact if he proceeded with a consent award rather than a hearing on the charges and then subsequently resigned.

DCJS notified Petitioner that it had completed its review and had concluded that the Police Chief accurately reported Petitioner's separation from employment as a removal for cause. 

Petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding against the Police Chief and others, [collectively referred to as Respondents] and DCJS, challenging DCJS's administrative determination as arbitrary and capricious. Upon considering the record, Supreme Court dismissed the petition against the Respondents holding that they were improper parties. 

Supreme Court, finding that DCJS' determination was not arbitrary and capricious insofar as the record demonstrated that Petitioner resigned due to being placed on an alternative assignment, which, the court emphasized, was a disciplinary consequence of the misconduct allegations, otherwise dismissed Plaintiff's petition on the merits. 

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition against Petitioner's former employer as "The primary relief requested by [Petitioner] is annulment of DCJS' determination and reinstatement of his basic training certification. 

Noting that DCJS is the entity with the authority "to amend [an] inaccuracy" in a police officer's record and is the agency that issued the final and binding determination (see Executive Law § 845 [3] [b]; General Municipal Law § 209-q [1] [b-1]), the Appellate Division said it was "unpersuaded by [Petitioner's] argument" that the Respondents are necessary parties because they "played a substantial role in the injury to [Petitioner] or ... were primarily  responsible for" DCJS' determination.

 Noting that it recognized that the Police Chief's "for cause" notification to DCJS "immediately" invalidated Petitioner's basic training certification as of that date, DCJS subsequently conducted a merits review of that determination under 9 NYCRR 6056.7, concluding that the Police Chief's "for cause" reporting was correct. 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that it was DCJS, not the Respondents, who made the ultimate administrative determination that caused Petitioner's injury.

That said, the Appellate Division ruled that "under the particular circumstances of this case", it agreed with Petitioner that DCJS' determination was arbitrary and capricious, explaining that "Where, as here, an administrative determination is made without a hearing, our review is limited to whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious, lacked a rational basis or was affected by an error of law", noting that "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts". 

The Appellate Division opined that DCJS' position that Petitioner was separated "for cause" from employment within the meaning of 9 NYCRR 6056.2 (h), if accepted, lacks a sound basis in reason, as it would permit a police department to claim that an officer resigned "for cause" any time a resignation was part and parcel to a disciplinary consequence — even if charges had been fully resolved years prior and even if the officer worked for several more years before retiring. 

Further, the Appellate Decision noted, DCLS' view was accepted, it would also render the consent award effectively meaningless — a troubling prospect given that [Petitioner] waived his right to a hearing on the misconduct charges in exchange for resolving the matter in a manner that would allow him to be reinstated in good standing, without any provision in the consent award notifying him that his basic training certification could be revoked if he resigned.  

The Court remitted the matter to DCJS for further consideration "not inconsistent with this Court's decision."

N.B. In a footnote in its decision, Footnote 4, the Appellate Division pointed out that prior to October 16, 2021, a removal for cause meant, in pertinent part, a "removal for incompetence or misconduct" by virtue of an employee's resignation "while a disciplinary process has commenced ... which may result in removal". In Matter of Kitto v City of Albany, N.Y. Dept. of Police (213 AD3d at 1170), that Court impliedly concluded that, for a resignation to constitute a removal for cause under the prior definition, it must have occurred while misconduct charges were still pending. The Appellate Division said it recognized that the amended definition uses broader language, but concluded that DCJS' determination, on these facts, "is not rational."*

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

* 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. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html.

Pandemic unemployment fraud conspiracy

On October 22, 2025, New York State Inspector General Lucy Lang announced the sentencing of Jodi Drygula, of Amsterdam, NY, and Anthony Camou, of Las Vegas, NV, for their roles in a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain more than $250,000 in unemployment insurance benefits intended to support New Yorkers during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Click HERE to access the press release issued by the Office of the Inspector General concerning this matter.

Appellate Division finds termination of educator from employment to be reasonable under the circumstances

Supreme Court rejected Plaintiff's petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award which resulted in the termination of Plaintiff's employment by Department of Education of the City of New York [Respondent] and granted Respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the arbitrator's determination that Plaintiff's teaching performance was deficient during the relevant three-year period, that it was supported by adequate evidence, which included the testimony of school administrators and documentation. 

Finding that the determination was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious the Appellate Divisions' decision noted that the record included written observational reports and testimony from school administrators and an independent peer evaluator demonstrating Plaintiff's inadequate teaching, Respondent's efforts at remediation, and Plaintiff's lack of improvement over the three-year period. 

The Court opined that the evidence "showed that [Plaintiff] was "unwilling or unable to implement suggestions" despite substantial professional development opportunities.

Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, the Appellate Division concluded that under the circumstances, termination was "not shocking to one's sense of fairness".

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

New York State Civil Service Department Policy Bulletin updates posted on the Internet

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published Policy Bulletins 25-01 and 25-02, updating the Governor's Programs to Hire Individuals and Veterans with Disabilities (See Civil Service Law Sections 55-b/c).

Text of Policy Bulletins 25-01 and 25-02 will be found at:
Updates to the Governor's Programs to Hire Individuals and Veterans with Disabilities (Civil Service Law Sections 55-b/c).

Policy Bulletins 25-01 and 25-02, in pdf format will be found at:
Updates to the Governor's Programs to Hire Individuals and Veterans with Disabilities (Civil Service Law Sections 55-b/c) - PDF.

To view previous Policy Bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/

Workers' Compensation 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its webinar series for employees next week, and there is still time to register!

On the dates listed below, the Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present on the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. The updated 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 sessions are free and there will be time at the end for questions.

Register here

Wednesday, November 5, 2025
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending October 31, 2025

After the Storm: Rebuilding Networks Restoring Communities. See the intense coordination required to bring critical services like power and internet back online after hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. Watch the Film.

Smarter Cloud Strategies for State and Local Government How state and local agencies are securing cloud growth, controlling costs and building trust around modernization and compliance. Click HERE

Updates to the CJIS Security Policy - What You Need to Know   November 3, 2025 12:00 PM PT / 3:00 PM ET. Duration: 60 minutes Can’t make it to the live event? Register here for this Complimentary Webinar. Can’t make it to the live event? Register and a link to the recording will be sent to you as soon as it’s available.

Paperless Billing: Cut Fraud, Costs, and Delinquent Payments Learn how digital billing can help your agency cut costs, reduce fraud, and improve service delivery. WATCH NOW 

Act Now: Is your AI Use in Compliance? Uncover Shadow AI, enforce policies, and  maintain legal records to protect your agency. Start Governing AI

Navigating the Shift: Cybersecurity Edition Join experts Deborah Snyder and Dan Lohrmann as they discuss evolving federal policies, updates from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), MS-ISAC, and more. They’ll explain what these developments mean for cybersecurity leaders and the vendors who support them. REGISTER TODAY

Preparing Utilities & Local Governments for a Paperless World The paperless future is here. Is your utility or local government ready? From rising postage costs to time-consuming manual processes, the shift to digital billing and payments is no longer optional — it’s essential. This resource explores how utilities can embrace a paperless future to cut costs, improve operational efficiencies, and meet modern demands. DOWNLOAD

Modernize Government Payouts for Better Service Discover how agencies can deliver fast, secure and equitable payments. READ MORE

Funding awarded through New York's Department of State’s Local Government Efficiency Grant Program

New York State Governor Hochul has announced $8 million in grant awards from the Local Government Efficiency Grant (LGEG) Program for 21 projects that create efficiencies and lower costs for local governments across New York State. The funding is administered by NYS Department of State and incentivizes New York municipalities to engage in partnerships that make communities more affordable.

The Local Government Efficiency Grant Program provides both planning and implementation funding to local governments that apply to the competitively scored grant program. 

Read More

New York City Administrative Law Judge recommended the termination of a City of New York employee who engaged in a scheme to defraud

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Charlotte E. Davidson recommended the termination of employment of an Eligibility Specialist [Respondent] with the City's Human Resources Administration [HRA] who, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, engaged in a scheme to defraud the federal Small Business Administration’s [SBA] Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and then failed to report her arrest for such conduct to HRA.

Judge Davidson found that HRA established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was arrested for and charged with federal crimes for defrauding the SBA and that she admitted to the charged conduct under oath in federal district court as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Such off-duty misconduct is a violation of HRA disciplinary rules.

Although Respondent testified that she felt unwell while giving her sworn admission and that the deferred prosecution agreement was not explained to her, her allocution* in federal court was reported to be thorough and robust. 

Respondent was asked about her health, the adequacy of her legal representation, whether she had read and understood her written agreement, and the substance of the conduct to which she was admitting. Further, the ALJ credited an HRA Director’s testimony that Respondent did not report her arrest to the agency over Respondent’s claim that she told an unnamed supervisor because Respondent’s testimony was vague and self-serving. 

Ultimately, Judge Davidson found that HRA proved that Respondent engaged in conduct that reflects unfavorably on her job fitness and may bring discredit to the agency because there is a clear nexus between defrauding the federal government and her job responsibilities, which include handling HRA’s clients’ sensitive personal and financial information. 

The ALJ recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct and her demonstrated dishonesty. 

* Allocution is the direct address between the judge and the convicted defendant prior to sentencing.  During the address, the judge speaks directly to the defendant and asks if the defendant has anything to add prior to hearing the sentence. The defendant then answers the judge and may say anything in an effort to lessen the severity of the sentence, such as an apology, an offering of remorse, or an explanation of the motivations for the defendant's actions. [Source: Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute.]

Click HERE to access Judge Davidson's decision posted on the Internet.

The Productivity Enhancement Program for 2026 applicable to certain employees in the public service of the State of New York and certain of its political subdivision

On October 30, 2025, the New York State Department of Civil Service issued the  Productivity Enhancement Program for 2026 applicable to employees of the State of New York as the employer, and certain employees of its political subdivision, subject to Department of Civil Service's Rules for the Classified Service.

Text of Policy Bulletin 2025-02 will be found at: Policy Bulletin 2025-02

Policy Bulletin 2025-02 is also available in PDF format at: Policy Bulletin 2025-02 PDF

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm