NYPPL readers please note:

NYPPL will resume posting summaries of selected judicial decisions, quasi-judicial decisions and other selected public personnel law information on the Internet on August 4, 2025.

Application for accidental disability retirement benefits denied as the result of the applicant's failing to satisfy the notice provisions required by law

Petitioner filed an application for accidental disability retirement [ADR] benefits based on psychological injuries she alleged she had sustained during an assault that occurred at her workplace. Petitioner's application for ADR was denied by the retirement system because Petitioner had not complied with the notice provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law §363(c).*

Ultimately a Hearing Officer sustained the denial of Petitioner's application for ADR benefits, finding, among other things, that Petitioner did not provide the Retirement System:

[1] Notice of the nature and extent of her injuries within 90 days of the incident; and

[2] The statutory exceptions with respect to such notice requirement did not apply in this instance.** 

Upon administrative review, the New York State Comptroller [Respondent] sustained the Hearing Officer's decision and Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Respondent's determination.

Observing that Petitioner contends, and the Appellate Division said it agreed, that Petitioner's employer had actual notice of the incident at the time of its occurrence, the Appellate Division's decision noted that the statute "requires written notice" and to prevail absent such written notice Petitioner was required to demonstrate that an exception to the statutory notice requirement applied in her situation.

Addressing the specific exceptions cited by Petitioner, the Court's decision stated  that Petitioner "did not file a claim for workers' compensation benefits, premised upon her alleged psychological injuries, until nearly 2½ years after the underlying incident occurred and well beyond the 30-day notice requirement set forth in Workers' Compensation Law §18." Further, the Appellate Division opined that "Even assuming that the Workers' Compensation Board elected to excuse this defect on the basis that [Petitioner's] employer had actual knowledge of the accident ... any decision in that regard would neither be binding upon [Respondent] nor preclude the denial of [Petitioner's ADR]  application."

The Appellate Division then said that it was not persuaded that Petitioner may avail herself of "the good cause exception". While there was no question that an investigation was conducted almost immediately after the incident and numerous reports, summaries and statements were filed promptly thereafter, none of those documents filed, including Petitioner's own statements, described the nature of the assault as herein alleged, "nor do those contemporaneous records make mention of any injury". 

Significantly the Court said there is "nothing irrational or unreasonable about [Respondent's] interpretation of the regulation as providing that the event that triggers the notice requirement is the occurrence that resulted in the disability, not the diagnosis of such disability".

Finding that the documentary evidence upon which Petitioner relied "failed to describe the nature of the accident and the resulting injuries alleged", the Appellate Division concluded that substantial evidence supported the Respondent's finding that Petitioner "cannot avail herself of the good cause exception" and sustained the Respondent's determination.

* Retirement and Social Security Law §363(c)(a) provides that "no application for accidental disability retirement benefits shall be approved unless the applicant has filed with respondent, within 90 days of the incident upon which the alleged disability is based, written notice of, among other things, the particulars of the incident and the nature and extent of the injuries sustained.

**Exceptions to the statutory notice requirement are provided for and include, as relevant here, where "notice of such accident [has been] filed in accordance with the provisions of the [W]orkers' [C]ompensation [L]aw" or "for good cause shown as provided by [the applicable] rules and regulations". 

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

A party must satisfy a very heavy burden when seeking to have an arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds

The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS] issued a notice of suspension and discipline to one of its employees [Petitioner] alleging that, among other things, Petitioner falsely held herself out as a police officer, executed an unauthorized traffic stop and arrested a motorist without cause. 

Petitioner grieved the 15 charges of misconduct DOCCS filed against her in accordance with the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement between DOCCS and the Public Employees Federation, Petitioner's collective bargaining unit representative. Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator rejected Petitioner's version of the incident as not credible, found Petitioner guilty of seven misconduct charges arising from the "motorist incident" but declined to decide the remaining eight charges, Charges 8 through and including Charge 15, stemming from allegedly inaccurate timesheets and vehicle logs. 

After reviewing Petitioner's personnel record, the arbitrator offered Petitioner a choice of penalties: 

(A) no reinstatement with an award of some back pay; or 

(B) reinstatement with no back pay for the 14-month suspension, loss of eight months of accruals, and completion of a five-day course on the use of force or anger management. 

Petitioner chose option (B), but DOCCS refused to reinstate Petitioner.

Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding to confirm the award and DOCCS cross-moved to vacate so much of the award "as assumed — rather than found — that [Petitioner] was not responsible for charges 8 through 15. Further, DOCCS argued that Petitioner's reinstatement violated public policy. 

Supreme Court granted DOCCS' cross-motion, concluding that strong public policies against "unauthorized use of force, unlawful arrests and impersonating a police officer" could not be reconciled with an award reinstating Plaintiff.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order partially vacating the award without reaching the merits of Petitioner's public-policy argument, reasoning that the arbitrator should determine the outstanding misconduct charges first and remitted the matter to the arbitrator.

On remittal, the arbitrator found Petitioner not guilty of charges 8 through 15 in a supplemental award and issued the same penalty options. 

Petitioner again chose reinstatement and DOCCS again refused to reinstate Petitioner. DOCCS and Respondent again appealed. Supreme Court agreed with Respondent, vacated the penalty and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator for a determination of a "different penalty". DOCCS appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, noting that "A court may vacate an arbitrator's award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)", ruled that "Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that 'violates a strong public policy'", noting that "An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds 'where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State'".

Observing that there was "no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Petitioner's guilt and penalty under the CBA", the Appellate Division said that its review in the instant appeal focuses on whether "the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns". [Emphasis supplied in the decision.]

Finding that DOCCS had not demonstrated such a conflict exists between constitutional, statutory and decisional law and the result of the arbitration award — reinstating Petitioner after a 14-month unpaid suspension, partial loss of accruals and completion of a five-day training and that the legal authorities cited by DOCCS set out generally applicable law,  but "the public policy considerations each authority embodies are too general to support vacating the arbitrator's penalty."

Concluding that DOCCS had not met its "very heavy burden" in seeking to have the arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds, the Appellate Division said it was "constrained to confirm the award". 

Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued audit reports concerning the New York state departments and agencies listed below

On June 15, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were posted on the Internet.

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

Department of Agriculture and Markets/Department of Health – Oversight of the Nourish New York Program (Follow-Up) (2024-F-27)

Nourish NY, jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture and Markets (AGM) and the Department of Health (DOH), supplies surplus New York-grown agricultural products (e.g., milk, apples, squash) to populations in need through the state’s network of food relief organizations (i.e., regional food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens) for distribution to people experiencing food insecurity. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, found that both AGM and DOH needed to strengthen controls to ensure that only eligible products and expenses are funded by Nourish NY. Gaps in oversight create a risk that funding from Nourish NY may not be going toward the purchase of eligible agricultural products that benefit state vendors and support the state’s broader agribusiness needs. AGM and DOH made significant progress in addressing concerns from the initial audit report. Of the report’s five audit recommendations, four were implemented and one was partially implemented.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Oversight of Homeless Shelters (Follow-Up) (2024-F-31)

The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) oversees the state’s network of emergency homeless shelters, which includes large former hotels, apartment houses and armories as well as smaller multi-family houses, specifically designed housing units, and motels. OTDA is responsible for supervising, inspecting and enforcing shelter compliance with applicable rules and regulations. A prior audit, issued in March 2020, found OTDA was not adequately overseeing homeless shelters. Auditors observed structural damage, mold, vermin, bug infestations, excessive garbage in rooms and missing or malfunctioning smoke detectors. OTDA needs to improve risk assessment, information tracking and monitoring of corrective actions and enforcement of existing consequences for violations. OTDA made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the report’s eight audit recommendations, five were implemented, one was partially implemented and two were not implemented.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Homeless Services Housing Needs Assessment (Follow-Up) (2024-F-36)

Homeless shelters across the state provide various services to individuals and families, including assessment of needs, case management, access to health care, treatment for substance abuse, childcare services and assistance with finding permanent housing. According to its 2023 Annual Report, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) oversaw a network of 580 transitional homeless shelters statewide. A prior audit, issued in August 2023, found that OTDA was not adequately ensuring timely completion of assessment and planning activities early in a client’s shelter stay. Delayed access to services prevents a client from achieving independence. In a sample, auditors found that 70% of clients did not transition to permanent housing. OTDA also failed to collect and analyze aggregate data to identify and address the primary causes of this failure. OTDA made limited progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, one was fully implemented, three were partially implemented and three were not implemented.

State University of New York – Oversight of Disability Services (Follow-Up) (2025-F-7)

The State University of New York (SUNY) is the largest comprehensive system of public higher education in the nation, comprising 64 institutions and serving approximately 367,500 students. During the 2023-24 academic year, 39,740 students self-reported a disability at SUNY campuses.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, including access to programs, activities and services. A prior audit, issued in August 2023, found that a sample of campuses provided academic accommodations, outreach and training to students and staff about available services, and received no complaints regarding discrimination based on a student’s disability. However, campuses didn’t always accurately and consistently report data on students with disabilities, and auditors identified 170 areas where accessibility could be improved (such as the height of certain amenities or fixtures like bathroom sinks, mirrors and soap dispensers). 

SUNY made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing all four audit recommendations.

New York City Department of Social Services: New York City Department of Homeless Services – Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. (2023-N-9)

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), within the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) is responsible for providing transitional housing and services in New York City and for providing fiscal oversight of the homeless shelters. In July 2011, DHS contracted with not-for-profit Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. (CAMBA) to provide temporary housing, case management, housing referrals, placement services and on-site medical and mental health services for homeless women at their 200-bed Magnolia House Women’s Shelter from July 2011 to June 2020.

During the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2023, CAMBA claimed $27.9 million in reimbursable expenses for the Magnolia contracts. Auditors found that $4,559,762 or approximately 16.3% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements. These findings, along with other irregularities, point to a significant deficiency in DHS’ monitoring and oversight of its contracts with CAMBA. For instance, DHS approved CAMBA’s security contracts without evidence that they were competitively bid, as required, and DHS also did not complete the required expenditure reviews or ensure that year-end closeouts were completed in a timely manner, a process control that would improve the quality of DHS’ reviews and facilitate recovery of overpayments.

New York City Department of Social Services: Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Bowery Residents’ Committee (Follow-Up) (2024-F-38)

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), an administrative unit of the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS), is responsible for providing transitional housing and services for eligible homeless families and individuals in New York City and for providing fiscal oversight of the homeless shelters. In February 2011, DHS contracted with the Bowery Residents’ Committee (BRC), a city-based not-for-profit organization, to provide emergency shelter and ancillary services for mentally ill and chemically addicted homeless adults at its 200-bed Jack Ryan Residence from September 2010 to June 2021.

During the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2019, BRC claimed $23.6 million in reimbursable expenses for the contract. A prior audit, issued in December 2021, identified, for the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2019, that $1,428,199, or 6.05% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements, indicating a significant monitoring deficiency. 

DHS officials made some progress in addressing the 11 recommendations from the initial audit report, implementing two, partially implementing seven and not implementing two.

Department of Agriculture and Markets – Farmland Protection Program (2023-S-19)

According to the American Farmland Trust, farms generate over $47 billion in annual economic impact and support approximately 160,000 jobs in the state; however, strains and operational stressors, such as the pressure to convert farmland to other uses like solar farms or residential homes—have contributed to the state rapidly losing farmland. The Farmland Protection Program (Program), established in 1996, provides eligible municipalities with grants (administered by the Department of Agriculture and Markets [AGM]) to implement farmland protection activities and promote the economic viability of farms while helping counteract pressures that may drive land out of agricultural production.

Auditors found that AGM divides the state into 10 geographic regions to allocate funding, distributing funds equally among them without considering regional factors such as grant eligibility, land values, farmland availability and Program participation, potentially contributing to delays in awarding grant funds for farmland preservation. Auditors also found that a $2 million cap per application, set by AGM in 2014, has a greater impact on regions with higher land values and greater development pressures, meaning farms in high-value areas may not be able to obtain adequate funding for their farmland conservation in a single application. Further, comparisons of historical AGM information and USDA Census data, as well as surveys of local land trusts, indicated a lack of awareness of the program and its requirements.

###

Commercial Risk Advisor Newsletter

The July 2025 Commercial Risk Advisor newsletter, posted on the Internet, reports on five workplace safety trends and five cybersecurity errors and how to avoid them. Download now

The owner of a medical transport company was sentenced to serve 3 to 9 years in prison for stealing more than $700,000 from New York State's Medicaid program and New York State's unemployment insurance program

On July 11, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Schenectady County District Attorney Robert M. Carney, and Schenectady County Sheriff Dominic Dagostino announced that the owner of a Schenectady County medical transportation company was sentenced to serve three to nine years in state prison and pay restitution of $766,600 for stealing  from New York state’s Medicaid program and more than $60,000 from the state’s unemployment insurance program.

Muhammad Adnan Saeed, 40, owner of Sublime Medical Transportation, pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in January in connection with his Medicaid fraud and unemployment scheme. 

"Muhammad Saeed systematically defrauded the Medicaid program by fraudulently inflating claims in order to pad his wallet and then compounded his crimes by lying about his income in order to obtain unemployment benefits,” DiNapoli said. “The Medicaid program provides access to essential health care for millions of people, and my office will continue to partner with law enforcement to root out waste, fraud and abuse. I thank District Attorney Carney and Schenectady County Sheriff Dagostino for their partnership in bringing Saeed to justice.” 

“It is true that there is waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system when it comes to providing transportation to recipients of benefits in the opioid treatment program,” Carney said. “This defendant engaged in elaborate schemes to steal public funds including inventing non-existing trips, providing kickbacks to clients to ride with him, and pretending to need unemployment benefits. I agree strongly with Comptroller DiNapoli that this conduct deserves criminal prosecution and incarceration, and I am happy to partner with him not only to bring that about in this case, but hopefully to deter others who may be contemplating engaging in similar fraud.

Under Medicaid regulations, patients may use transportation services for legitimate appointments, which are then billed to the Medicaid program by the transportation provider. Group rides are not allowed without prior authorization, and when approved, providers can only bill for mileage once for the group. Sublime was enrolled in the Medicaid program as a participating transportation provider for program beneficiaries. 

The joint investigation revealed that Saeed fraudulently billed the Medicaid program for over four years, claiming payment for individual rides which were actually unauthorized group rides. Investigators determined that nearly 85% of Sublime’s Medicaid claims were fraudulent.

The investigation also found Saeed paid kickbacks to Medicaid enrollees to use Sublime’s services and facilitate the crime. Saeed, who earned $88,500 as a driver for his company, also applied for and unlawfully collected state unemployment insurance benefits in excess of $60,000, while at the same time running Sublime. 

###

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: 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.

Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80 -- A Tribute to New York State’s Legacy in Advancing Human Rights

 

State Capitol Exhibit Highlights Historic Contributions and Ongoing Role of the New York State Division of Human Rights in Defending New Yorkers Against Discrimination On July 10, 2025, the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York State Office of General Services announced the opening of an exhibit in the State Capitol to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the New York State Human Rights Law. The exhibit, entitled “Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80,” explores pivotal moments that have positioned New York State at the forefront of protecting individuals from discrimination under what has become one of the most comprehensive human rights laws in the country.  The exhibit can be viewed on the second floor of the State Capitol in the Governor’s Reception Room. Admission is free and will remain open to the public from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays through September 1st.  “Since 1945, we’ve defended every New Yorker’s right to belong. As the nation’s first state agency dedicated to the protection and furtherance of human rights, we’ve set the standard for fairness and equity, from workplaces to homes and communities. And today, we continue to uphold our commitment of creating a New York where everyone feels at home,” New York State Division of Human Rights Commissioner Denise M. Miranda, Esq. said. “I encourage everyone to visit the State Capitol this summer to celebrate the people and milestones that shaped the oldest statewide anti-discrimination law in the country, and one of the most expansive sets of civil rights protections anywhere in the United States.”  New York State Office of General Services Commissioner Jeanette Moy said, "New York State is home to many of our nation’s firsts, and enacting the Human Rights Law that laid the groundwork for future civil rights protections is one of them. Team OGS is proud to join forces with DHR in marking this critical moment of our state’s history by co-developing the ‘Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80’ exhibition. I invite everyone to stop at the New York State Capitol to visit this exhibit. There is no better way to celebrate the 80th anniversary than by learning about our state’s Human Rights Law and the individuals and events leading to the Law's expansion.”  “Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80” traces the history of New York State’s trailblazing and nation-leading protections of human rights. The exhibit highlights key milestones of New York’s progress in expanding human rights protections, beginning with the groundbreaking legislation in 1945 that made New York the first state to enact an anti-discrimination law and continuing up to the present day.  Some of these landmark moments include the 1950s expansion of the law to prohibit discrimination in housing and places open to the public, like hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and hospitals; the 1974 expansion of the law to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities—nearly two decades ahead of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act; the 1980s handling some of the nation’s earliest cases of discrimination against people diagnosed with AIDS; the 2003 expansion of the law making it illegal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation; the 2019 strengthening of workplace sexual harassment protections; and the 2023 expansion of the law increasing the statute of limitations for all discrimination claims from one year to three years.   Marking the 80th anniversary of the New York State Human Rights Law and the creation of the Division of Human Rights, the exhibit also highlights the Division’s instrumental role in enforcing these protections. The Division’s role has been significantly strengthened by Governor Hochul’s historic investments in the Division, doubling the agency’s budget and enabling the Division to expand its staff and improve every aspect of its operations and services.  Since Governor Hochul appointed Commissioner Miranda to lead the agency in March 2024, the Commissioner has increased staffing by more than 50 percent; launched an overhaul of the Division’s complaint intake process; established critical new internal and performance analytics units; and expanded public education and outreach initiatives. These key investments and initiatives continue to make the Division stronger and more prepared to meet present-day challenges in the fight for civil and human rights.   About the New York State Division of Human Rights The New York State Division of Human Rights is dedicated to eliminating discrimination, remedying injustice, and promoting equal opportunity, access, and dignity. Anyone who believes they have experienced discrimination can report it to the Division. If it is under the Division’s authority and jurisdiction, Division staff will investigate and adjudicate the case. Throughout this process, the Division is a neutral fact finder representing the interests of the State, not functioning as an advocate or attorney on behalf of either complainants or respondents. All of the Division’s procedures are conducted free of charge, and members of the public are not required to have an attorney to file a complaint. The Division’s work shows that New York State will make violators of the law pay. During the Division’s 2024 Fiscal Year, the agency awarded more than $8 million in compensation to complainants who experienced discrimination. The Division can also order a wide range of additional remedies—including reinstatement to a job, back pay with interest and benefits, changes in organizational policies, and a variety of other forms of compensation and remediation. The Division of Human Rights is also empowered by law to investigate and file complaints in cases of systematic discrimination through its Division Initiated Action Unit (DIAU). The DIAU can, upon its own motion, initiate investigations and file complaints alleging violations of the state anti-discrimination law. Individuals can report systemic issues of discrimination by emailing the Division at tips@dhr.ny.gov. Copyright © 2025 New York State. All rights reserved. Our Privacy Policy

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending July 11, 2025

Puerto Rico Reboots Ethics Rules: Tech Innovation Required - Rochester, New York attorney Nichole Block's recent Daily Record column notes that "The times they are a-changin" and State Bars are struggling to keep up. Read the whole entry 

AI training for teachers - A group of leading tech companies is teaming up with two teachers’ unions to train 400,000 kindergarten through 12th grade teachers in artificial intelligence over the next five years. Read More HERE

Rethinking the Government Workplace - Agencies can use a combination of emerging technologies, data-informed design and cross-functional collaboration to transform traditional office space. This paper explains multiple factors government leaders should consider in return-to-office strategies. DOWNLOAD

A Mosquito Abatement Success Story - This California mosquito abatement district slashed chemical costs by 50% and reduced complaints tenfold—using connected field devices, GPS mapping, and mobile data management. Read how public health meets public tech. DOWNLOAD

Massachusetts Drafts New Rules for How Cops Interact With Youth Proposed statewide standards would cover everything from transporting young people to arresting their caregivers. READ MORE

Strategic Procurement to Navigate Fiscal Constraints in Local Government Faced with inflation, labor shortages and mounting infrastructure needs, local governments must find smarter ways to manage costs without compromising service delivery. READ MORE

AI in State and Local Government: Everything You Need to Know - A go-to guide, Artificial Intelligence, shares everything you need to know to quickly begin implementing AI and developing the appropriate policy for the technology. DOWNLOAD 

New York State municipal and school audits issued

On July 9, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

Vertus Charter School – Information Technology (IT) Asset Management (Monroe County) School officials did not appropriately track, inventory and safeguard IT assets acquired or in use during the audit period. Although the board-adopted financial policies and procedures manual required the chief operating officer to ensure accurate inventory records were maintained to safeguard all assets, it did not provide detailed guidance for maintaining inventory records for most IT assets because the dollar amount of most IT assets do not individually meet the policy’s inventory record-required threshold of $1,500 for fixed assets. In addition, the IT asset inventory was decentralized with multiple individuals and a service provider maintaining inventory records, which resulted in the records containing inconsistent information.

Port Washington Union Free School District – Payroll (Nassau County) Auditors examined compensation totaling $449,510 that was paid to 40 of the district’s clerical, custodial, maintenance, security and transportation employees and found district officials designed and implemented policies and procedures that ensured the compensation paid was accurate. Therefore, the report does not contain recommendations.

Town of Cohocton – Procurement (Steuben County) Town officials did not always solicit competition in accordance with the town’s procurement policy, statutory requirements or good business practices and stated it was an inconvenience for them to adhere to the town’s procurement policy. This resulted in procurements that were not made in the most prudent and economical manner. For example, of the $3.7 million in goods and services purchased between Jan. 1, 2023 and August 6, 2024, almost $2 million were procured without competition. The audit identified instances where officials and employees responsible for purchasing did not solicit competitive bids for purchases of goods totaling approximately $1.3 million from 10 vendors, for which auditors identified potential cost savings of $23,000 for vehicle and energy purchases. Officials also did not issue RFPs or use any other form of competitive process before procuring professional services from 15 providers totaling approximately $540,000. In addition, officials did not obtain the minimum number of quotes required by the town’s procurement policy for purchases totaling approximately $131,000 or the minimum number of required quotes for credit card purchases totaling approximately $21,000.

Germantown Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Columbia County) District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 63 of the 146 water outlets identified that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted from sampling and how they would be secured, and what remedial actions were planned or enacted for water outlets identified as exceeding the lead action level.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County) The city’s 2025-26 adopted budget totals $1.55 billion, which includes operating and debt service funding of $809.2 million for the Yonkers Public Schools and $739.8 million for the city. The 2025-26 budget is $35.8 million more than the city’s budget for 2024-25, an increase of 2.4%. The 2025-26 budget relies on nonrecurring funding sources of $114.4 million, such as appropriated fund balance, one-time state and Federal funding and sale of property, to balance its budget. The city plans to borrow up to $15 million for tax certiorari settlements in the 2025-26 fiscal year. Overtime costs could potentially be underestimated for police by as much as $341,000. Employee retirement costs are likely underestimated by as much as $5.3 million. The city should be mindful to ensure appropriations are sufficient for any potential liabilities when contract agreements for collective bargaining agreements are reached. The city’s contingency reserve is 1.5% of the city’s general fund budgeted appropriations, leaving a limited flexibility to cover any other unforeseen or unexpected costs. Since 2017, the city’s debt service payments have risen 6.2% and the city will need $90.4 million to service its debt obligations during 2025-26.

###

Administrative Law Judge denies a request to take judicial notice of testimony given by the witness in an earlier hearing in the instant hearing

New York City's Office of Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls denied the Respondent’s application asking the ALJ to take judicial notice of, or admit as evidence, transcripts from a prior OATH administrative hearing proceeding.

The New York City's Department of Sanitation [Petitioner] had charged Respondent with certain time and leave violations. Although Respondent appeared at the first day of the instant administrative hearing, he failed to appear at subsequent hearings scheduled in the instant proceeding and authorized his counsel to proceed in his absence.

In addition, Respondent failed to call any witnesses or present any evidence in the instant administrative hearing but after the conclusion of the hearing Respondent’s attorney submitted an application seeking to have the ALJ "take judicial notice of the transcripts of testimony taken at an earlier concluded 11-day OATH hearing involving Respondent." Plaintiff's attorney also reported that Respondent was unavailable “despite reasonable efforts to locate him.” 

The ALJ denied Respondent's judicial notice request noting that the transcript of the prior proceeding contained contested information and information that was "not common and general knowledge". 

In addition, Judge McGeachy-Kuls rejected Plaintiff's attorney's argument that the transcripts were admissible as prior judicial admissions. The ALJ explained that such admissions are offered to establish an inconsistency between a witnesses' testimony in an earlier proceeding and the witnesses' former and current testimony.

The ALJ further noted that Respondent had refused to testify in the instant proceeding and reject Plaintiff's attorney's argument that the transcripts were admissible as prior testimony hearsay because there was no evidence in the record that Respondent was unavailable to testify at the instant hearing.

Click HERE to access the decision and recommendation of Judge McGeachy-Kuls posted on the Internet.

Circuit Court of Appeals hold that, under the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to a new hearing before a different administrative law judge

Plaintiff appealed the United States District Court’s granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security [SSA].

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled that as hearing officer who had  presided at Plaintiff’s initial SSA hearing not been properly appointed when he had  conducted the hearing regarding [Plaintiff’s] application for Social Security benefits and issued a decision denying her benefits, Plaintiff “is entitled to a new plenary hearing on her disability benefits [claim] before a different, properly appointed" SSA Administrative Law Judge.

The United States District Court had remanded Plaintiff’s case “on the merits” to SSA for a new hearing before a different ALJ.  Plaintiff, however, appeared before the same SSA Administrative Law Judge who had presided at Plaintiff's initial administrate hearing for the new, second administrative hearing. 

The Circuit Court observing that Plaintiff’s application was to be heard “by a different adjudicator”, held that as SSA did not provide Plaintiff a different hearing officer to hear Plaintiff's claim, this “rendered the Commissioner’s final decision” a violation of the "appointments clause".

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits, the Second Circuit vacated SSA's "final decision" and directed the district court “to REMAND the matter to the Commissioner for a de novo hearing" on Plaintiff’ disability benefits claim before a different, validly appointed SSA administrative law judge.

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court’s decision posted on the Internet.

Court of Appeals rejects New York City retirees' health insurance coverage claims based on their promissory estoppel argument

Noting that In the Matter of Robert Bentkowski, et al [Respondents], Supreme Court ruled in favor of Respondents on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their cause of action under Administrative Code of the City of New York §12-126 (b) (1), and the Appellate Division affirmed, the Court of Appeals [1] vacated those rulings, [2] reversed the order of the Appellate Division and [3] remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a determination on Respondents' remaining causes of action.

In the words of the Court of Appeals:

"The Appellate Division has not, however, expressly decided whether a promissory estoppel cause of action can be based on promises made while the relevant question was a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Here, we need not decide whether to recognize a promissory estoppel cause of action, either generally or in this particular context, because petitioners have failed to establish the existence of a clear and unambiguous promise."

The text of the decision of the Court of Appeals is set out below:

Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 03690

Decided on June 18, 2025

Court of Appeals

Troutman, J.

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 June 18, 2025

No. 57

[*1]In the Matter of Robert Bentkowski, et al., Respondents,

v

City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Richard Dearing, for appellants.

Jacob S. Gardener, for respondents.

Aetna Life Insurance Company, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association et al., Common-Sense Caucus of the Council of the City of New York, Michael Wasserman et al., Physicians for a National Health Program-New York Metro, amici curiae.

TROUTMAN, J.:

New York City is required by law to provide health insurance coverage for persons retired from City employment. For more than 50 years, the City fulfilled its responsibility by offering a choice of health insurance plans. Options for Medicare-eligible retirees included Medicare supplemental plans—also known as Medigap plans—and Medicare Advantage plans (MAPs). Whereas a Medigap plan supplements traditional Medicare by covering additional out-of-pocket costs, a MAP is an all-in-one alternative to traditional Medicare that is funded primarily through Medicare subsidies. The most popular plan the City offered was Senior Care, a Medicare supplemental plan.

In 2021, to cut costs, the City made significant changes to its health benefits program. After related litigation halted the City's original plan (Matter of NYC Org. of Pub. Serv. Retirees, Inc. v Campion, 210 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2022], affd 43 NY3d 228 [2024]), the City decided to discontinue Senior Care and most other options and enroll all retirees in a custom-designed MAP negotiated with and to be managed by insurer Aetna Life Insurance Company. Petitioners, nine retirees and one organization, commenced this proceeding asserting 12 causes of action seeking, among other things, to enjoin the City from eliminating their existing health insurance plans. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their cause of action under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 (b) (1), and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The primary issue before us is whether petitioners are entitled to judgment on their promissory estoppel cause of action. Because we conclude that petitioners are not so entitled, and that their alternative grounds for relief raised before us lack merit, we reverse the order of the Appellate Division and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination on petitioners' remaining causes of action.

I.

Petitioners commenced this proceeding and requested a preliminary injunction.^[FN1] In their petition, they alleged that throughout their employment the City repeatedly promised them that upon retirement it would provide and pay for a Medicare supplemental plan, that they reasonably relied on those promises by making financial, employment, and retirement decisions based on the guarantee of Medicare supplemental coverage for life, and that they will suffer injury if removed from their existing health insurance plans due to higher copays, prior authorization requirements, and their preferred providers' refusal to accept the Aetna MAP. Some alleged that they did not budget for health insurance coverage in their retirement and now cannot afford to opt out of the Aetna MAP and obtain Medicare supplemental coverage elsewhere. Others alleged that they had relocated to states where insurers can legally deny Medicare supplemental insurance coverage based on preexisting health conditions, meaning that those retirees in the direst circumstances would not be able to obtain such coverage elsewhere, even if they could afford to do so.

To support the allegation of a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life, petitioners submitted copies of Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) that the City provides its employees and retirees on an annual basis to inform them of their health insurance options. The SPDs generally contain the following language:

"Through collective bargaining agreements, the City of New York and the Municipal Unions have cooperated in designing the benefits for the City's Health Benefits Program. These benefits are intended to provide you with the fullest possible protection that can be purchased with the available funding . . .

"This [SPD] booklet gives brief plan descriptions and a comparison of benefits of all available plans . . .

"When you or one of your dependents becomes eligible for Medicare at age 65 (and thereafter) or through special provisions of the Social Security Act for the Disabled, your first level of health benefits is provided by Medicare. The Health Benefits Program provides a second level of benefits intended to fill certain gaps in Medicare coverage . . . [T]he City's Health Benefits Program supplements Medicare but does not duplicate benefits available under Medicare."

Cover letters from the Mayor of the City of New York often accompanied the SPDs. While those letters routinely referred to the City's commitment to providing high-quality health coverage, they also often referred to ever-increasing medical costs and the fact that collective bargaining determined the amount of funds available to provide for health insurance costs.

Petitioners also submitted the affidavit of Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, who served the City for decades in various capacities under several mayoral administrations, including as Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. Barrios-Paoli stated that the SPD is "the most comprehensive guide to employees' and retirees' benefits," so much so that the City agencies' human resources (HR) staff and the employees' union representatives "relied on the SPD to explain benefits to workers and future retirees." Although the SPDs changed from year to year, she conceded, for decades the SPDs set forth a choice of benefits that always included access to traditional Medicare and a supplemental plan. "Importantly," Barrios-Paoli continued, "City Agency HR people reiterated this promise of choice to generations of prospective City employees. The guarantee of good healthcare in retirement—including the choice to participate in traditional Medicare with a City-paid supplemental plan—was an essential recruiting and retention tool." Barrios-Paoli further stated that she had "hundreds of conversations" over approximately 25 years where she explained the choice of health insurance to employees, and that many of those about to retire told her that they had decided where they would live in retirement based on their understanding that a Medicare supplemental plan would give them access to the doctors and hospitals they needed.

Petitioners also submitted hundreds of affidavits provided by Medicare-eligible retirees. Those who alleged that a promise had been made to them did so in a paragraph that is virtually identical across all the affidavits. One representative example stated as follows:

"During my employment with the City and during my retirement, the City repeatedly promised that when I retired and became eligible for Medicare, the City would pay for my Medicare Part B premium plus my choice of a Medicare Supplemental plan. This promise was made to me in writing in [SPDs] and various other brochures."

Only a few of the affiants named a specific HR staff member who allegedly made an oral promise. One such affiant, for example, named an HR staff member who made the "same promise" as in the SPDs.

Respondents answered, arguing, among other things, that the City's statements in the SPDs did not constitute "a clear and unambiguous forward-looking promise sufficient to support a promissory estoppel claim." Furthermore, respondents stated that the Aetna MAP was the product of negotiation between the City, Aetna, and the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC), which represents over 100 municipal unions in the collective bargaining process. According to respondents, the Aetna MAP would allow the City to access federal subsidies, creating $500 million in savings to be allocated to a Health Benefits Stabilization Fund to provide sufficient reserves for future health benefits.

In addition, MLC and Aetna sought to intervene as respondents. Aetna submitted the affidavit of one of its vice presidents, who stated that Aetna obtained the list of providers who billed Senior Care and confirmed that 97% of those providers are either in Aetna's network or had billed Aetna within the prior two years. Aetna's vice president also stated that Aetna had agreed to waive 85% of its typical prior authorization requirements and that the Aetna MAP has a lower deductible than Senior Care, as well as an out-of-pocket maximum.

Supreme Court granted petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction, and thereafter the parties stipulated to the completeness of the record and jointly requested a final judgment. The court granted the petition on the grounds that the City's actions were barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and violated Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1).

The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that, "for more than 50 years," the City made "a clear and unambiguous promise . . . that upon an employee's retirement, Medicare would provide the first level of hospital and medical insurance benefits and the City's benefits program would provide the second level to fill in the gaps" (229 AD3d 95, 100 [1st Dept 2024]). The Court relied primarily on the Barrios-Paoli affidavit and the fact that the City [*2]submitted no evidence to contradict the statements in that affidavit (see id. at 97-98, 100). The Court further concluded that petitioners reasonably and foreseeably relied on the promises because they chose public employment over often higher-paying private-sector employment and chose their residences and healthcare providers based on the availability of traditional Medicare, and that petitioners demonstrated injury to those whose providers would not accept the Aetna MAP (see id. at 101). The Court concluded, however, that the City's actions did not violate Administrative Code § 12-126 (see id. at 102-103).

We granted respondents leave to appeal (42 NY3d 909 [2024]), and we now reverse the Appellate Division order.

II.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel, which was conceived in 1920 and has developed over the past century, "provides a remedy for many promises or agreements that fail the test of enforceability under many traditional contract doctrines" (Calamari & Perillo, Contracts § 6.1, at 218 [6th ed]; see Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 90). While we have never recognized promissory estoppel as a standalone cause of action (see Matter of Hennel, 29 NY3d 487, 494 n 3 [2017]; Allegheny Coll. v National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown, 246 NY 369, 373-374 [1927]), the Appellate Division has done so in at least some circumstances, and its departments are unanimous that an essential element of a promissory estoppel claim is a " 'clear and unambiguous promise' " (Villnave Constr. Servs., Inc. v Crossgates Mall Gen. Co. Newco, LLC, 201 AD3d 1183, 1186 [3d Dept 2022]; see Vassenelli v City of Syracuse, 138 AD3d 1471, 1475 [4th Dept 2016]; Sabre Intl. Sec., Ltd. v Vulcan Capital Mgt., Inc., 95 AD3d 434, 439 [1st Dept 2012]; Agress v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 69 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]; see also 57 NY Jur 2d, Estoppel, Ratification, and Waiver §§ 51-54; Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 90). The Appellate Division has not, however, expressly decided whether a promissory estoppel cause of action can be based on promises made while the relevant question was a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Here, we need not decide whether to recognize a promissory estoppel cause of action, either generally or in this particular context, because petitioners have failed to establish the existence of a clear and unambiguous promise.

The SPDs themselves contain nothing that could be construed as a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life. To the contrary, we agree with the City that the language in the SPDs is descriptive and for informational purposes only. The language on which petitioners rely—"becomes eligible," "is provided," "provides," and "supplements"—is in the present tense. The descriptive nature of the SPD is reflected in the title of the document—Summary Program Description—and its informational nature is also clear from the context of the SPD, the purpose of which is to explain benefits for the upcoming year. Indeed, annual SPDs are necessary only because benefits change from year to year, a fact petitioners do not contest. Petitioners rely heavily on the phrase "and thereafter" in the SPDs as conclusive evidence of a continuing promise, but read in context this language is used only to explain when someone is eligible for Medicare and not in reference to any promise of future benefits. To the extent that one might infer a commitment of sorts from the SPDs' language, it does not rise to the level of a clear and unambiguous promise that the City would pay for Medigap coverage, as opposed to some other form of health insurance coverage, for the rest of every retiree's life.

Any inference of a lifetime promise derived from the SPDs is even less plausible in light of the prefatory language employed therein and the mayoral cover letters. The prefatory language explicitly states that health benefits are negotiated through collective bargaining, implying that those benefits could be changed through that same process, and that benefits are designed to provide "the fullest possible protection that can be purchased with the available funding," implying that the provision of benefits depends on the availability of funding. Furthermore, the cover letters often explicitly state that rising costs and funding limitations may affect benefits.^[FN2] In 1992, Mayor Dinkins wrote of "dramatically increasing medical costs" and stated that the success of the program "depends" on "the mutual cooperation and combined effort of all concerned," including the City, the unions, and the retirees. He added that collective bargaining "determines the amount of funds available" and "which plans will be offered." In 1994 and 1996, Mayor Giuliani repeated statements of his predecessor, and in 1996 he added that the City was "continually seeking new and creative responses" to financial challenges. In 2004, Mayor Bloomberg offered similar [*3]statements and added that offering "comprehensive" and "affordable" coverage "is by no means an easy task." Those statements further underline that the SPDs were an explanation of the health insurance benefits that were available at the time—not a promise of the continuation of those benefits.

Because there is no clear and unambiguous promise in the SPDs, the affidavits of Barrios-Paoli and the hundreds of retirees likewise fail to establish the existence of such a promise. The "promise" to which Barrios-Paoli referred to in her affidavit was founded in the SPDs, which she described as "comprehensive." She stated that HR staff relied on the SPDs to explain health insurance benefits to employees as the benefits changed over the years. Barrios-Paoli's assertions are confirmed in the affidavits of hundreds of retirees, who also stated the City made its alleged promise of Medicare supplemental coverage for life in the SPDs and other brochures. The SPDs, however, undermine the assertion of a clear and unambiguous promise, and the other brochures are no more favorable to petitioners. Although a few of the nonparty retirees who submitted affidavits named an HR staff member who allegedly made an oral promise, no petitioner did so. And even those alleged oral promises often cite back to the SPDs. To the extent any City official made oral statements about the City's health insurance obligations that went beyond the SPDs—and to the extent the City could be bound by a statement made by a City official—those statements are not clearly and specifically described in the affidavits. Thus, the affidavits of the retirees no more establish a clear and unambiguous promise than do the SPDs. Absent a clear and unambiguous promise, any possible promissory estoppel claim must fail (cf. Sabre Intern. Sec., 95 AD3d at 439).

III.

As an alternative ground for affirmance, petitioners contend that Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) requires the City to provide and pay for a Medicare supplemental plan, and that a MAP does not suffice. We reject petitioners' contention for the reasons stated at the Appellate Division (see 229 AD3d at 102-103). The requirement that the City pay for "the entire cost of health insurance coverage" (Administrative Code § 12-126 [b] [1]) prohibits the City from passing any portion of the cost up to the statutory cap on to its employees and retirees. Section 12-126 does not require the City to fund health insurance without the benefit of federal subsidies.

IV.

Finally, petitioners also contend that the City's actions, insofar as they affected school district employees, violate the Moratorium Law, which, as originally enacted, stated:

"From on and after June 30, 1994 until May 15, 1995, a school district, board of cooperative educational services, vocational education and extension board or a school district as enumerated in section 1 of chapter 566 of the laws of 1967, as amended, shall be prohibited from diminishing the health insurance benefits provided to retirees and their dependents or the contributions such board or district makes for such health insurance coverage below the level of such benefits or contributions made on behalf of such retirees and their dependents by such district or board unless a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions is effected from the present level during this period by such district or board from the corresponding group of active employees for such retirees" (L 1994, ch 729).

The original text is unaltered except for the sunset date, which the legislature extended several times until eliminating it entirely (see L 2009, ch 504, § 14).

The Moratorium Law sets " 'a bottom floor, beneath which school districts and certain boards [a]re forbidden to go in diminishing' " their retirees' health insurance coverage benefits or the districts' contributions for the cost of such coverage (Kolbe v Tibbetts, 22 NY3d 344, 358 [2013]). The statute does not require that benefits be equal as between retirees and active employees (see Matter of Jones v Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist., 30 AD3d 967, 968-970 [4th Dept 2006]). Here, the parties stipulated to the completeness of the record. On that record, petitioners failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish that the City's decision to shift retirees to the Aetna MAP constitutes a diminution in retiree benefits or the City's contributions for those benefits. We therefore conclude that the cause of action based on the Moratorium Law fails as well.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein. Opinion by Judge Troutman.

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro and Halligan concur.

Decided June 18, 2025

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Petitioners also sought class certification (CPLR art 9) and, although there was never a motion to certify a class, the injunction encompasses all retirees, not only petitioners (see 229 AD3d 95, 103 [1st Dept 2024]). Respondents argue, in light of a stipulation between the parties, that petitioners waived class certification, and petitioners argue based on the same stipulation that respondents waived any opposition to it. We need not decide this issue because we conclude that petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to judgment.

Footnote 2: We do not mean to suggest that statements in a letter from the mayor could create a permanently binding promise, nor that statements in such a letter could negate an otherwise clear and unambiguous promise.