New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the audits described below on May 30, 2025

The New York State and agency audits summarized below were posted on the Internet on May 30, 2025.

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

Empire State Development – COVID-19 Pandemic Small Business Recovery Grant Program (2023-S-10)
Empire State Development (ESD) was charged with administering the COVID-19 Pandemic Small Business Recovery Grant Program (Program) designed to support small businesses or for-profit independent arts and cultural organizations impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic that either did not qualify for federal assistance programs or that received inadequate federal COVID-19 support. ESD awarded the entirety of the $760 million allocated for small businesses to 40,842 applicants, with an average grant amount of $18,608. Auditors found ESD awarded almost $4.1 million to 101 businesses that were ineligible because they had already received assistance from federal business assistance programs. Additionally, ESD did not consider business type, need, or factors established in the original goals of the Program when awarding grants, instead favoring a first-come, first-served methodology to awarding grants, which resulted in tens of thousands of businesses that went unfunded and certain types of businesses—most notably sole proprietor transportation businesses without employees (i.e., rideshare drivers)—receiving a significant percentage of the total dollars spent.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Jackson Child Development Center, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2022-S-21)
Jackson Child Development Center, Inc. (JCDC), a New York City-based not-for-profit organization, is approved by the State Education Department (SED) to provide preschool special education services to children with disabilities ages 3 to 5. For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2020, JCDC reported approximately $24 million in reimbursable costs for its SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $3,020,800 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Department of Health and Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services – Oversight of Water Supply Emergency Plans (Follow-Up) (2024-F-32)
The State Public Health Law requires community water systems that supply drinking water to more than 3,300 people to prepare and submit a Water Supply Emergency Plan to the Department of Health (DOH) for approval at least once every five years. Plans must include an Emergency Response Plan, a Vulnerability Analysis Assessment, and a Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment. A prior audit, issued in June 2023, found several instances where it had been more than 10 years since the last Emergency Response Plan or Vulnerability Analysis submission, and some water systems had never submitted a Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment. Further, there was limited participation by Local Health Department staff in calls and site visits where the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) communicates recommendations to water systems. DOH and DHSES officials have made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing four recommendations and not implementing one.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Monitoring of Homeless Data (2023-S-38)
The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) supervises homeless shelters and related programs through 58 local departments of social services (Local Districts). While reports from Local Districts provide aggregate data to OTDA, Local Districts typically also collect and submit client-level data on the populations they serve to Homeless Management Information Systems (HMISs). In New York, federally funded regional or local planning bodies—Continuums of Care (CoCs)—that coordinate housing and services funding control access to the HMISs but are not required to share this data with OTDA or provide open access to the Local Districts that submit this data. Auditors found OTDA does not have access to the client-level data collected in the various HMISs—data that could be analyzed and used to help identify the root causes of homelessness, gauge progress toward achieving permanent housing, and better determine what programs are used or needed by the homeless population. OTDA asserts that it has no oversight of the HMIS data controlled by the CoCs and, consequently, has acquired permission to access the data from only seven of 24 CoCs, which represent approximately 7% of the State’s homeless population based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s point-in-time count.

New York State Health Insurance Program – UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York: Overpayments for Physician-Administered Drugs (Follow-Up) (2024-F-35)
The Empire Plan is the primary health insurance plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP), providing over one million members with health insurance coverage. The Department of Civil Service, which administers NYSHIP, contracts with UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York (United) to administer the Medical/Surgical Program of the Empire Plan and to process and pay claims submitted by health care providers. Medical/surgical benefits cover a range of services, including physician-administered drugs, which are drugs (other than vaccines) that are administered by a health care provider in a physician’s office or other outpatient clinical setting. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, identified over $5.5 million in actual and potential overpayments for physician-administered drugs. United officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit, recovering about $501,000 of the overpaid claims, and were taking steps to make more recoveries. Of the initial report’s eight audit recommendations, one was implemented, six were partially implemented, and one was not implemented.

New York State needs better oversight of government Artificial Intelligence [AI] systems

On May 28, 2025, the Albany Times Union published an "op-ed" by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli addressing "the need for tougher oversight of governments use of Artificial Intelligence [AI] systems".

Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform how government operates and delivers services. New York state agencies have used AI companions to help seniors combat social isolation, and the Department of Motor Vehicles is using facial recognition technology to deter identity fraud.

These significant technological advances come with profound ethical, legal and societal questions that have to be addressed. If they aren’t, the very New Yorkers they are meant to help could be put in harm’s way.

That is why my office has called on New York’s leaders to enact robust oversight over government’s uses of AI. We need to be assured that these technologies are used safely, fairly and responsibly. In a recent audit that examined the state’s use of AI, my auditors found clear evidence that New York’s use of AI is running well ahead of the state’s ability to manage it.

AI governance must be baked into the process of agencies’ adoption and use of various technologies. This means having rules, guidelines and practices in place that promote transparency from the start, address the flaws and biases that can come with AI, and instill public accountability.

This year, New York strengthened its AI governance framework with a new law requiring state agencies to disclose the AI tools they use and directing the Office of Information Technology Services to keep a public inventory of AI systems. The law also includes protections for employees.

The state has also recently updated its AI acceptable-use policy, which requires agencies to perform a risk assessment of the AI systems they plan to use, assign a human to oversee it if it makes a decision that affects the public, check its performance and document the outcomes of using it.

These are positive developments, but they are not enough.

Our audit found that agencies lack specific procedures to test the accuracy and fairness of their AI systems. That leaves residents vulnerable to harmful automated decisions. One agency that uses voice biometric software to validate people’s identities had never tested its system’s accuracy. Another agency said it wasn’t using AI because it did not think facial recognition technology was AI - even though it had a facial recognition system that met the state’s definition of AI.

The lack of central oversight, inadequate guidance for agencies, the absence of an AI inventory and insufficient training are at the root of these problems. The result: State agencies are left largely alone to adopt AI and create the rules to govern it.

Unsurprisingly, this creates serious vulnerabilities. For example, when we asked what happens to the data created and collected by the AI companion devices given to seniors, officials said the vendor — not the state agency — owns the data on their performance and the recordings of their interactions. 

Failure to address who owns the data creates significant privacy risks. Agencies could lose the ability to delete the data; the vendor could use the data to develop new products or train models, or could sell it without agency consent; and the data could be exposed to security breaches and the loss of personal information.

Establishing good AI governance will require efforts on several fronts. We need a framework that sets clear boundaries for using AI and guidelines and training that help agencies understand and adhere to these standards. Systems must be tested, and not just by the vendor selling the technology. Testing and oversight have to be continuous as AI evolves.

Regular and independent audits will verify that agencies are living up to standards, checking for vulnerabilities and using what they learn to drive improvements. My office will look at the AI systems used by state agencies to see if they are working and verify that vendors are playing by the rules.

The new law will help increase transparency and accountability, but it will only be effective if it is implemented consistently and backed up by rigorous oversight. Audits help verify that written principles are upheld in practice and that these systems benefit New Yorkers by making government more effective at delivering services.

This strategy not only safeguards against current risks; it also prepares governments to adapt to future advancements and builds confidence that the state is using AI responsibly, ethically and transparently.

 ###

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the Comptroller's TU Op Ed and, or, the audit posted on the Internet.

Times Union Op Ed
Commentary: New York Needs Better Oversight of Government AI Systems

Audit
New York State Artificial Intelligence Governance

Conducting a disciplinary hearing in absentia

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul a determination by the New York City Civil Service Commission [CSC] affirming the appointing authority's decision to impose the penalty of termination on the Plaintiff following a disciplinary hearing "conducted in absentia". Supreme Court also granted a cross-motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. 

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, without costs.

Citing Matter of Centeno v City of New York, 115 AD3d 537, the Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff's constitutional arguments, which are his only arguments reviewable under the "extremely narrow scope of review applicable" to CSC determinations, were unpreserved as Plaintiff's brief submitted to the CSC "never protested that [his] constitutional rights were being violated," and "[the Appellate Division said it] has 'no discretionary authority' to 'reach[] an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice' in an article 78 proceeding ... including issues touching on due process".

With respect to conducting a disciplinary hearing in absentia, New York courts have held that such a disciplinary hearing may proceed and the employee tried in absentia provided the appointing authority has complied with a number of procedural steps, including the following:

1. The appointing authority must properly serve the employee with the disciplinary charges and advise him or her, among other things, of the date, time and place of the hearing.

2. A diligent effort to contact the individual to determine if he or she has a reasonable explanation for his or her absence from the scheduled disciplinary hearing must be made before the hearing officer proceeds to conduct the hearing in the absence of the accused employee even if the employee had earlier advised the appointing authority or the hearing officer that he or she will not participate in the disciplinary hearing.

3. A formal disciplinary hearing must be conducted and the appointing authority is required to introduce evidence proving the charges and specifications served on the employee to the hearing officer.

4. A formal record of the hearing must be made and a transcript provided to the appointing authority and, if requested, to the employee.

5. The employee must be advised of the appointing authority’s determination and of the employee's right to appeal if he or she has been found guilty of one or more of the charges and specifications considered at the disciplinary hearing conducted in absentia.

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

Dismissed lawsuit alleging breach of contract brought by retired teachers, not teachers as defined in the collective bargaining agreement, reinstated

  

In this action seeking to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, the plaintiffs/petitioners, who are retirees of the school district, appealed from an order and judgment by a Supreme Court granting the school district motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'/retirees' amended complaint-petition and dismissed their action-proceeding. The plaintiffs/petitioners appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division directed that the Supreme Court's order and judgment be modified, on the law, noting Supreme Court erred in dismissing the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs [other than one who was not an employee of the school district] "for failure to exhaust administrative remedies". 

Typically an employee covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] that provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial redress. 

Here, however, the Appellate Division noted that "the failure of the plaintiffs [other than the one identifies as not being an employee of the school district] to pursue the grievance procedure as outlined in the CBA did not warrant dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted by them, since the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA applied only to 'teachers,' defined as members of the bargaining unit employed during the regular school year". 

Citing Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, and Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, the Appellate Division opined that plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have initiated a "contract grievance" before commencing the instant action.

The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:

Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist.

2025 NY Slip Op 02907

Decided on May 14, 2025

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 14, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2023-05014
(Index No. 58551/22)

[*1]Chappaqua Congress of Teachers, et al., appellants,

v

Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District, et al., respondents.

Robert T. Reilly, New York, NY (Oriana Vigliotti, Hannah Weinstein-Ammann, and Matthew E. Bergeron of counsel), for appellants.

Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY (David S. Shaw and Mark C. Rushfield of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid action to recover damages for breach of contract and proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs/petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), dated April 3, 2023. The order and judgment granted the defendants/respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the amended complaint/petition and dismissed the action/proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting that branch of the defendants/respondents' motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs/petitioners Chappaqua Congress of Teachers, Michael Debellis, Bonnie Mitchell, Gerard Sulli, Laura Triglia, Felice Gittelman, Patricia Greco, Leslie Feldman, Anita Lorraine Jones, Theresa Zuckerberg, Virginia Munoz, Melanie Weinstein, Patricia Pollock, Sandy Kowalski, Jing Chen, Michael Bierbauer, Maryse Santini, Susan Constantini, Susan Johnson, Mary Coleman, Joelen Donohue, Genevieve Hanlon, Patricia Wolff, Jeffrey Knisely, Barbara Fingeroth, Sharon Boyce, Carol Hughes, Ann Lertora, Janet Fletcher, Katheryn Ward, Anne Bonington, Phyllis Bellofatto, and Martin Hughto, and dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted by those plaintiffs/petitioners, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract insofar as asserted by those plaintiffs/petitioners is reinstated.

Pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (hereinafter CBA) between the Chappaqua Central School District (hereinafter the District) and the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (hereinafter the CCT), an association representing District employees, the District agreed to provide healthcare benefits for active and retired employees and their spouses. Retired employees over age 65 were required to enroll in a Medicare Part B program, and, in keeping with the CBAs, the District reimbursed retirees the cost of Medicare Part B coverage. Some retirees, based upon their household income, were subject to a surcharge in addition to the standard Medicare Part B premium, known as the income-related monthly adjustment amount (hereinafter IRMAA). Prior to August 2018, the District reimbursed retirees for IRMAA surcharges in addition to the standard [*2]premium cost.

On August 16, 2018, the District informed retirees that it would no longer reimburse them for IRMAA surcharges. In response, numerous retirees commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District, the District, and Christine Ackerman, as superintendent of the District, seeking to annul the August 16, 2018 determination on the ground that it violated chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994 (as amended by L 2007, ch 22), known as the Retiree Health Insurance Moratorium Act (hereinafter the moratorium statute), and seeking reinstatement of the reimbursements. The Supreme Court determined that the District's discontinuation of reimbursements violated the moratorium statute, granted the petition, and directed the District to reinstate the reimbursement, including retroactive reimbursements. This Court affirmed the Supreme Court's determination (see Matter of Bailenson v Boad of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 194 AD3d 1039, 1040).

During the course of that proceeding, the District and the CCT entered into a memorandum of agreement (hereinafter MOA) on December 14, 2020, wherein they agreed to incorporate the provisions of their 2018-2021 CBA into a one-year successor agreement, effective July 1, 2021, and terminating on June 30, 2022, except as modified, inter alia, by adding the following language to the agreement: "The District's sole obligation to reimburse unit members who retire and their spouses, where applicable, on or after July 1, 2021 shall be for Medicare Part B payments at the standard rate." The District, for the period beginning on July 1, 2021, began reimbursing all of its retired employees and their spouses (with the exception of the Bailenson petitioners) for the standard premium only, but not the IRMAA surcharges.

On March 31, 2022, the CCT and its then president, Miriam Longobardi, commenced this hybrid action to recover damages for breach of contract and proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, contending that the District was required under the MOA to reimburse all retirees who retired before July 1, 2021, for the full amount of their Medicare Part B premiums, including the IRMAA surcharge. Thereafter, on November 15, 2022, an amended complaint/petition was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter the plaintiffs), the CCT, Michael Debellis in place of Longobardi as the president of the CCT, and 32 allegedly retired former employees of the District who retired prior to July 1, 2021 (hereinafter the individual plaintiffs). The defendants/respondents (hereinafter the defendants) moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the amended complaint/petition. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the action/proceeding. The plaintiffs appeal.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the CCT and Debellis lacked standing to maintain the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. "To establish standing, an organizational plaintiff . . . must show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue, that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts and that the case would not require the participation of individual members" (New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211). Here, the CCT represents only current employees, and not retirees, of the District. Current employees represented by the CCT were not affected by the District's determination, since it was adverse only to retirees who retired before July 1, 2021. Since only retirees are affected, the CCT did not show that any of its members would have standing to sue or that its mission makes it an appropriate representative of the plaintiffs' interests, and thus, the CCT cannot maintain associational or organizational standing (cf. Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326, 331). The court also properly granted dismissal of the amended complaint/petition insofar as asserted by Gail Read, since the defendants established, and the plaintiffs did not oppose, that Read was never a District employee.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the CPLR article 78 proceeding insofar as asserted by the individual plaintiffs other than Read was barred by the statute of limitations. A challenge to an administrative determination must be commenced within four months of the time the determination is "final and binding upon the petitioner" (CPLR 217[1]). "A determination becomes final and binding upon the petitioner when the petitioner receives notice that the agency has reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and . . . the injury [*3]inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the [petitioner]" (Matter of Hepco Plumbing & Heating v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 227 AD3d 903, 905 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34). "The relation back doctrine 'enables a plaintiff to correct a pleading error—by adding either a new claim or a new party—after the statutory limitations period has expired,' and gives courts the 'sound judicial discretion to identify cases that justify relaxation of limitations strictures . . . to facilitate decisions on the merits if the correction will not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff's adversary'" (Catnap, LLC v Cammeby's Mgt. Co., LLC, 170 AD3d 1103, 1106, quoting Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177-178). "A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading" (CPLR 203[f]). The relation back doctrine "applies only in those cases where a valid preexisting action has been filed" (U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 33 NY3d 84, 90).

Here, the plaintiffs challenged the District's determination to cease reimbursement of the IRMAA surcharges on or after July 1, 2021, a determination that was not communicated to the individual plaintiffs other than Read until mid-December 2021, when checks from the District reimbursing the individual plaintiffs' standard Medicare Part B payments, but not the IRMAA surcharge, were mailed. The amended complaint/petition, which added the individual plaintiffs as parties, was not filed until November 2022, after the four-month statute of limitations period had expired. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, because the CCT and its then president lacked standing to bring the CPLR article 78 claims in the original complaint/petition, there was no "valid preexisting action" upon which the CPLR article 78 claims in the amended complaint/petition could relate back (U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 33 NY3d at 90).

However, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the CCT and Debellis lacked standing to maintain the breach of contract cause of action. Since the CCT was a party to the MOA, the District's alleged refusal to pay retiree benefits under that agreement will injure the CCT by depriving it of the benefit of its bargain, and thus, the CCT has standing to sue for breach of the MOA regardless of whether the benefit accrued to third parties, namely, the retirees (see United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Intl. Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v Cookson Am., Inc., 710 F3d 470, 474-475 [2d Cir]; see e.g. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. v Plainedge Union Free School Dist., 12 AD3d 395, 395-396).

The Supreme Court additionally erred in dismissing the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs other than Read for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Generally, an employee covered by a CBA that provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies (see Murray v Town of N. Castle, N.Y., 203 AD3d 150, 172; Spano v Kings Park Cent. School Dist., 61 AD3d 666, 670-671). Thus, "when an employer and a union enter into a collective bargaining agreement that creates a grievance procedure, an employee subject to the agreement may not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, through the union, in accordance with the contract" (Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 508; see Murray v Town of N. Castle, N.Y., 203 AD3d at 175).

Here, the failure of the plaintiffs other than Read to pursue the grievance procedure as outlined in the CBA did not warrant dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted by them, since the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA applied only to "teachers," defined as members of the bargaining unit employed during the regular school year. Thus, the individual plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have pursued a grievance before commencing this action (see Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, 1305; Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, 650).

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Former treasurer of the Essex County Agricultural Society and former Willsboro town clerk/tax collector, pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $90,000 in funds from the society and the town

On May 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Franklin County District Attorney Elizabeth Crawford and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that Bridget Brown, the former treasurer of the Essex County Agricultural Society and former Willsboro town clerk/tax collector, pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $90,000 in funds from the society and the town.

“Bridget Brown exploited the trust of her community and used her two positions to enrich herself at taxpayer expense,” DiNapoli said. “My thanks to Franklin County District Attorney Crawford and Superintendent James for their partnership in fighting public corruption and holding Bridget Brown accountable.”

The Franklin County District Attorney’s Office served as special prosecutor, with Executive Assistant District Attorney Alyxandra Stanczak assigned.

“Thanks to the Comptroller’s Office, especially the forensic analysts and the attorneys who provided their time and expertise through the investigation, indictment, and in preparation for trial,” Crawford said. “As public officials ourselves, we understand the trust placed in government organizations. We are proud to uphold our oaths to bring a just result to this case — holding Bridget Brown accountable for her betrayal of the public trust when she used her position as tax assessor and town clerk to steal from the taxpayers of the Town of Willsboro. Ms. Brown also financially decimated the Essex County Fair, having now been convicted of stealing over $50,000 from that organization. The Fair is a summer destination for the community and by the community. The fair has thankfully been able to persist despite Ms. Brown’s theft. As a part of her negotiated plea agreement and her conditions of probation, Ms. Brown will be required to pay full restitution back to the Town and the Fair.”

“Ms. Brown violated the public trust by disregarding the law and stealing funds she was not entitled to,” James said. “We will continue to aggressively investigate any case that involves public corruption. I want to commend our State Police members, the Comptroller’s Office, and Franklin County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance in making sure she will no longer be able to take advantage of those who put their trust in her.”

The Essex County Agricultural Society is a non-profit organization whose mission is to encourage and promote agriculture in young children and adults through the Essex County Fair. Brown worked for the society from 2013 to 2019. She also separately served as Willsboro town clerk/tax collector from 2014 to 2021, having lost election in 2021.

Investigators found that while employed with the society, Brown overpaid herself and made unauthorized ATM withdrawals and personal purchases using the society’s bank account. She also used $5,300 of society funds to repay a personal loan. To facilitate her theft, she falsified the fair’s business records. She also obtained an unauthorized $20,000 loan on behalf of the fair, which the society’s board was unaware of and did not approve, in order to cover up her theft. In total, she is accused of stealing approximately $60,000 from the society.

In light of her actions as the fair treasurer, an examination was launched into her activities in the Town of Willsboro.  An investigation and forensic audit determined that during Brown’s tenure as town clerk/tax collector, she stole approximately $29,000 from taxes, licenses, and landfill fees by pocketing cash payments rather than depositing the funds into the town’s account. The forensic analysis revealed that on certain days when Brown collected cash for the town there were corresponding nearly identical cash deposits into her personal bank account.  

Brown pled guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in relation to the funds stolen from the fair and grand larceny in the third degree as a crime of public corruption related to the theft from Willsboro before Judge Tatiana Coffinger in Essex County Court. Her sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2025.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by mailing a complaint to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations.

For the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, leaving employment without a firm job offer such as a start date for that new employment, does not constitute leaving for good cause

In this appeal of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, [Board], the Appellate Division sustained the Board's decision disqualifying an applicant [Claimant] for unemployment insurance benefits "because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause".

Claimant had advised her then employer [Employer] that she had been accepted into nursing school and the then Employer told Claimant that although she could not continue in her present full-time position while attending school, a per diem position could be created for her. 

Claimant began classes and was advised by the Employer that it "would need a resignation letter" stating her last day of work. Claimant submitted a letter on September 12, resigning effective September 27, following her use of certain accrued leave. 

Claimant had indicated that she had resigned with the understanding that, "in accordance with the [then Employer's] general policy, the per diem position had to be approved and posted prior to her being able to apply for it, and no set start date or salary for the position had been determined".

Some two weeks after her resignation was effective the per diem position had not yet been posted and Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant received one payment of benefits before the Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. 

At the hearing which followed, the Employer explained that organization-wide delays with getting new positions posted and maintained that Employer was committed to formally hiring Claimant for the per diem role once the administrative process was complete and the position could be posted. 

Ultimately Claimant was formally hired for the per diem position but while the instant appeal to the Appellate Division and the Board application were pending, the Board reopened the matter on its own motion and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision on the merits.

With respect to Claimants appeal to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence". 

Further, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 222 AD3d 1099, explained "It is well established that resigning from a position in order to pursue academic studies, while commendable, constitutes a personal and non-compelling reason for separating from one's employment, disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits".  The Appellate Division's decision then observed that "leaving employment without a firm job offer, most significantly here a start date for that new employment, does not constitute good cause."

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

A member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System must be a bona fide retiree in order to be eligible to receive retirement benefits from the system

The Petitioner in this action appealed the denial of his application for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 service retirement benefits by the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS].

Petitioner worked as a correction officer for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for over 34 years, resigning from that position in April 2021. Petitioner, however, had commenced working for the Granville Central School District as a school bus monitor in March 2021. 

On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed an application with ERS seeking service retirement benefits with the school district pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15, indicating an effective retirement date of May 15, 2021. Petitioner also advised the school district that he was retiring on May 15 "with the intent of continuing [his] employment" with the school district. 

Ultimately Petitioner resigned from his position as a bus monitor on October 15, 2021, for health reasons, but continued to work for the school district as a consultant.

In May 2019, the New York State's Retirement System's Pension Integrity Bureau [Bureau] commenced investigating retirement applications submitted by individuals who had predominantly worked as correction officers but were seeking benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15. In a letter dated February 2, 2022, the Bureau informed Petitioner that, after reviewing his application, he was "not eligible to retire under the article 15 plan as of the effective date of [his] retirement (i.e., May 15, 2021) because [he] did not have a bona fide termination from employment." 

Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer denied Petitioner's application, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had a bona fide termination of his employment. The Comptroller affirmed the Hearing Officer's findings and decision. Petitioner then initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.

The Appellate Division, noting that:

1. "The Comptroller has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence"; and 

 2. The Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 does not define the term "retirement,"; explained it employed the commonly understood meaning of the term, which is "to withdraw from one's position or occupation" or to "conclude one's working or professional career", quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "retirement".

Sustaining the Comptroller's interpretation that an applicant for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 benefits "must demonstrate that he or she actually retired from public service employment in the first instance" and concluding "that it is entirely rational and reasonable for [the Comptroller] to require that such retirement be genuine, i.e., the applicant must demonstrate that there has been a legitimate cessation or termination of employment.

Opining that "... the Comptroller's reasonable interpretation that applicants for Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 benefits demonstrate a legitimate cessation or termination of employment prior to re-employment does not constitute fraud, misrepresentation, deception or similar misconduct in order to implicate the exception allowing the doctrine of estoppel to be invoked against a state agency, held that "substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that [Petitioner] was ineligible for benefits because he did not actually retire from service on May 15, 2021".

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

Courts Are Facing an Artificial Intelligence Tidal Wave

Judges have been facing making decisions concerning the admission of Artificial Intelligence [AI] created evidence at trial with increasing frequency. This issue is the focus of a recent article posted on the Internet by Rochester attorney Nicole Black, initially published in her column in The Daily Record.

Click HERE to access Ms. Black's article.

Selected reports issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending May 23, 2025

DiNAPOLI RELEASES GUIDE TO FEDERAL FUNDING IN NEW YORK

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full report.

A new online resource released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli details the vast array of services that federal funding supports amid the continued uncertainty in Washington over potential cuts for states, including funds for Medicaid and other health programs, education, social welfare, transportation, public protection, environment and other vital programs.

“Actions taken in Washington to cut health care, food assistance, infrastructure and other critical programs will harm New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “Major cuts will reduce the services the state provides that simply cannot be replaced by state taxpayers. Understanding how New Yorkers are served by federal dollars will be essential in seeing how future changes to federal spending will impact our residents and communities."

DiNapoli’s guide presents federal revenues in the state budget and federal support of the state’s safety net programs, which help New Yorkers from their youngest years in childcare and K-12 education through their senior years with Social Security benefits. In addition, the new tool provides spending by major funding streams and functions, including grants for various Medicaid programs, clean water, and children’s health insurance programs. It also includes a county-by-county breakdown in enrollment and benefits for programs like Medicaid, Social Security, housing assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

Insights include:

• The state received $96.7 billion in federal dollars in state fiscal year (SFY) 2025, representing more than 38% of the $249 billion in revenue received by New York in that fiscal year.
• Nearly 3 million New Yorkers rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest food assistance program.
• Nearly 9,000 (4.7%) members of the state’s workforce are backed by federal funding, with the share significantly higher in some agencies, such as 83% at the Department of Labor.
• Over 3.7 million New York residents received Social Security benefits in 2023.
• Over 150,000 children received childcare assistance funded primarily by the federal government.
• More than one-third of residents are on Medicaid in eight counties: Bronx, Chemung, Kings, Montgomery, Queens, Richmond, Rockland and Sullivan.

DiNapoli has released multiple reports this year highlighting the relationship between the state and the federal government, including his annual balance of payments report, and analysis of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The online guide will be expanded with additional analysis and reports as federal actions become more concrete.

Online Tool
Federal Funding in New York

Other Resources
New York’s Balance of Payments in the Federal Budget
Series of Briefs Tracking New York City Federal Funding

###

 DiNAPOLI RELEASES MUNICIPAL AUDITS

                 Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full report.

Fairview Fire District – Financial Operations (Dutchess County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage and oversee the district’s financial operations and were not transparent. Auditors found limited assurance that the information used by the board and district officials to make financial decisions was accurate and complete. Taxpayers had limited access to financial information to help ensure they could make informed decisions related to district operations. The board improperly assigned the duties of the district treasurer to an independent contractor. Unrealistic budgets increased the burden placed on taxpayers and resulted in the district’s reserve funds, in total, increasing by approximately $1.5 million (84%) over the last five fiscal years. Board meeting minutes did not always contain complete information on formal board actions and were not made available for public review in a timely manner.

Town of Saugerties – Claims Auditing (Ulster County)

The board did not properly audit claims or authorize credit card purchases. Auditors reviewed 50 claims, totaling $2.1 million and 50 credit card purchases, totaling $28,815. Fifteen purchases, totaling $91,979, did not comply with the town’s purchasing policy. For example, town officials paid a contractor $46,500 to clear debris for the highway department without competitive bidding or documentation that it was exempt. Auditors also found 36 credit card purchases, totaling $10,868, that were not properly authorized, including an unauthorized individual who used the town supervisor's credit card to make a purchase without the supervisor's knowledge. The equipment purchased was then shipped to the town’s former video supply contractor. The supervisor was unable to verify whether the town received this purchase due to the lack of supporting documentation. Also, the supervisor used a town credit card to pay for lunch to celebrate an employee’s birthday, which is not an appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Rhinecliff Fire District – Board Oversight (Dutchess County)

The board did not adequately provide oversight of financial operations, hindering its ability to make informed financial decisions and assure taxpayers that the district’s financial activities were adequately accounted for and reported. The board did not complete mandated financial oversight training or ensure proper accounting records were maintained. The board did not make certain required annual financial information was filed with the State Comptroller’s office since 2009. It did not ensure bank reconciliations were performed, conduct an annual audit of the secretary-treasurer’s records or develop and adopt written multiyear financial and capital plans, among other issues.

City of Amsterdam – Budget Review (Montgomery County)

The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the 2025-26 proposed budget are reasonable. However, auditors identified certain revenue and expenditure projections and other matters that should be reviewed. Auditors noted the mayor submitted the 2025-26 proposed budget to the council on May 6, 2025, or 35 days after the charter-established deadline. The proposed budget for the recreation fund is not structurally balanced because it includes a subsidy from the general fund to finance its operations. The proposed budget for the water fund does not include appropriations for real property taxes that will be owed to local governments and school districts for properties that the city owns outside of Amsterdam for the purpose of supplying water to the city. The proposed budget allocates appropriations for personal services, contractual expenditures and employee benefits between the operating funds using unsupported allocation methods. The city’s proposed budget includes a tax levy of $6,378,809, which is within the legal limit.

###

FORMER HANNIBAL FIRE CHIEF PLEADS GUILTY TO STEALING FROM FIRE COMPANY

Former Hannibal Fire Chief Chris Emmons pleaded guilty today to Grand Larceny for stealing from the town’s fire company and agreed to pay $9,838 in restitution, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Oswego County District Attorney Anthony J. DiMartino, Jr., and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced.

“Mr. Emmons diverted money meant to protect his community to fund his own interests by deceiving the fire company that it would receive the proceeds,” DiNapoli said. “Emmons betrayed not only the company but all who rely upon it. I thank District Attorney DiMartino and Superintendent James for their continued partnership and ensuring Emmons was held accountable.”

“The Oswego County District Attorney’s office thanks the New York State Police and the New York State Comptroller’s Office for their assistance in this matter,” District Attorney DiMartino, Jr. said. “With the concerted efforts of these agencies, we achieved a just and proper result. The defendant will immediately be required to pay restitution for the monies he deprived from the Hannibal Fire Company as determined by the Comptroller’s audit, as well as community service and supervision. This conduct will never be tolerated and will be prosecuted to deter such similar illegal conduct.”

“Mr. Emmons’ guilty plea illustrates the duplicity he presented to cheat the fire company out of its rightful funds,” Superintendent James said. “The disruption of this act serves as a reminder that we will not tolerate those who choose to profit from this activity. We will continue to partner with the Comptroller’s Office and the Oswego County District Attorney’s Office to hold those who defraud public sector organizations accountable.”

Emmons used the Hannibal Fire Company’s funds to build a go-kart track, Hannibal Kartway, claiming that its proceeds would benefit the company. Emmons, his family and others ran the track for five years, from 2017 to 2022, until an audit by DiNapoli’s office discovered discrepancies in the track’s books. A subsequent investigation found that rather than turning the money over to the company, Emmons had pocketed the Kartway’s profits. The investigation also found that Emmon’s father, Carl Emmons Sr., closed the Kartway’s bank account upon learning of the Comptroller’s examination and the remaining funds were transferred to his bank account. Carl Emmons Sr. faces pending charges of Grand Larceny in the fourth degree.

Chris Emmons pleaded guilty before Judge Karen Brandt Brown of Oswego County Court. He is scheduled to appear again on May 22, 2026.

###

  

DiNAPOLI: SYRACUSE MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO STEALING NEARLY $22,000 IN PENSION CHECKS SENT TO HIS DECEASED MOTHER

A Syracuse man pleaded guilty yesterday to stealing nearly $22,000 in pension payments sent to his deceased mother, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Onondaga County District Attorney William J. Fitzpatrick and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced. The defendant, Michael Glinski, 45, was arrested in January 2025 following an investigation by DiNapoli’s office.

“Mr. Glinski tried to hide his mother’s death to cash her pension checks. Attempts to steal from and defraud our pension system will be rooted out,” DiNapoli said. “My thanks to DA Fitzpatrick and Superintendent James for their partnership in holding the defendant accountable.”

James said, “I commend our State Police members and partners from the State Comptroller’s Office for their devoted work on this investigation. Mr. Glinski knowingly defrauded the New York State pension system, taking benefits from those who rightfully earned them. The State Police will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable individuals who mistakenly think they can get away with these crimes.”

Glinski’s mother, a clerk with the Village of Solvay Police Department, retired in August of 2014 and received a monthly pension check. She also received her deceased husband’s pension payment as a beneficiary since 2019. When she passed away in October 2021, both payments should have stopped, but the New York State and Local Retirement System was not notified of her death until July 2022. Her payments then stopped, and an investigation was launched. 

DiNapoli’s investigators determined that Glinski had deposited 17 pension checks, totaling $21,946.36, into his personal bank account by endorsing the checks using his power of attorney, which he knew had ended under the law at the time of his mother’s death.    

Glinski pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree in Onondaga County Court before Judge Mary Anne Doherty. He is due back in court on June 23.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

In an effort to vacate an arbitration award the burden is on the petitioner to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence

The petitioner, Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. [Union], and Nassau County [Respondent], entered into a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] that was effective from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Although the CBA expired, many of its terms, including the particular provision presently at issue in this CPLR Article 75 action  remained in effect.

The Union filed a grievance asserting that the County had violated a provision of the CBA when it declined to credit negotiating unit members credit compensatory time off for  who were required to report to work while other negotiating unit members were directed to stay home due to COVID-19 exposure during a state of emergency declared by the County in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately the matter was submitted to arbitration. 

After a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying the the Union's grievance. The arbitrator determined that the County had not violated relevant section of the CBA because that provision did not apply in the instant circumstance. The Union challenged the arbitration award and  commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Supreme Court "denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding". The Union appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v City of Long Beach, 214 AD3d at 736-737, noted that the burden is on the petitioner "to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence" as  "Courts may vacate an arbitrator's award only on the grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)". Pointing out that the Union only claimed that the arbitrator "exceeded his power", the Appellate Division opined that "Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power".

Further, the opinion notes that "'Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies" and cannot  examine the merits of an arbitration award nor substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one.

 Contrary to the Union's contention, the Appellate Division held that the arbitration award, which rested upon the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA, was supported by the record, was not irrational, and did not rewrite the terms of the CBA. 

Finding that the Union failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that it was irrational and "An arbitration award is irrational only where there is no evidence whatever to justify the award, or where the award gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties", the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding."

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