Enjoy a great Thanksgiving 2025!

NYPPL will next post an item on November 29, 2025.

Eligibility for receiving financial compensation for health conditions resulting from exposure to hazardous material in the wake of 9/11

The New York State's Court of Appeals held that for the purpose of claiming Workers' Compensation Law benefits as a result of exposure to hazardous materials while participating in 9/11 cleanup efforts, Workers Compensation Law §168 applies only to a claim by a statutorily defined participant in the recovery efforts. 

The Court noted that "[I]n the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the legislature enacted Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which was designed to ensure that both employees and volunteers who participated in rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations at the World Trade Center and other statutorily enumerated sites could recover for health conditions resulting from exposure to hazardous material". 

At issue in this action was a claim for death benefits filed by the spouse of a volunteer who had applied for and received lifetime benefits based on multiple medical conditions he contracted as the result of his working at a designated site. 

Although the statute provides benefits to both employees and volunteers and, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "has ensured that many who served in those vital response efforts received financial compensation", the Court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law §168 applies with respect to a claim by a statutorily defined "participant" in the recovery efforts. 

Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.

Former fire department treasurer sentenced to serve 1-3 years in state prison and to make restitution

On November  21, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Oneida County District Attorney Todd Carville, and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that the former treasurer of the Durhamville Fire Department, Kimberly Simchik, after pleading guilty to stealing from the fire department. Simchik was sentenced to serve 1-3 years in state prison and to pay $92,000 in restitution. 

“The sentence in this case should be a warning to anyone tempted to abuse their position of trust for their own financial gain. We will find you and you will be held accountable for your actions,” DiNapoli said. “My thanks to Oneida County District Attorney Carville and the New York State Police for their partnership in bringing Simchik to justice.” 

Carville said, “Stealing from our volunteer service is a reprehensible act which is wholly unacceptable and inexcusable. The Oneida County District Attorney’s Office would like to commend the New York State Police and the New York State Comptroller’s Office for their assistance in investigating this matter and in bringing the defendant to justice.”

James said, “Public service requires the highest level of integrity, and any breach of that trust undermines confidence in the institutions that serve our communities. I commend the State Comptroller’s Office and the Oneida County District Attorney’s Office for their thorough work and partnership throughout this investigation. New Yorkers can be assured that when public funds are misused, it will be identified, investigated and prosecuted.”

Simchik, 62, pleaded guilty in September to stealing more than $90,000 from the local fire department. She used the department’s debit card at area casinos and deposited checks meant for the department into her own bank account, spending the money on travel and spa treatments.

When the fire department noticed problems in its account it contacted the New York State Police. The ensuing investigation conducted by the State Police and DiNapoli’s office uncovered the details of Simchik’s crimes.

She was sentenced before Judge Michael R. Nolan in Oneida County Court.

 ###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. Reports of allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money may be filed 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 by clicking on https://www.osc.ny.gov/investigations; 

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending November 21, 2025

How Public Sector Leaders Are Reframing Government Cyber Strategy Most cyber strategies fall short for one simple reason: limited visibility. This paper shows how state and local governments are rethinking cybersecurity by prioritizing real-time asset visibility across IT, OT and IoT systems. DOWNLOAD

Leveraging GenAI to Secure Critical Federal Funding One state agency cut weeks off its grant writing timeline--and walked away with $15 million in funding. This case study shows how public sector teams can use AI tools to streamline complex applications without cutting corners or sacrificing compliance.  DOWNLOAD

Firewalls Aren't Enough: Securing Government for the AI Era AI is changing how governments operate — and how cyber threats emerge. Traditional firewalls alone can’t keep up with modern attack surfaces, especially in decentralized, cloud-driven environments. This paper explores why a platform-based security approach is now essential, highlighting strategies like autonomous segmentation, AI model protection and centralized threat detection. DOWNLOAD

On-demand service enhances transit equity in Jersey City Tech-driven service design improves transit equity and job access in Jersey City. Read the full case study on Jersey City's transit innovation.

AI Security Readiness: Insights from 100 Cloud Architects, Engineers, and Security Leaders AI services are everywhere, but the security playbook hasn’t caught up. This report digs into how 100 cloud and security professionals are tackling gaps in AI visibility, governance, and risk. Learn where most teams fall short and what steps leading organizations are taking to regain control in complex cloud environments. DOWNLOAD

Keep Your New York State and Local Retire Pension Safe with Direct Deposit

The New York State and Local Retirement System [NYSLRS] reports having seen an increase in check fraud and the delayed receipt of pension check sent by mail during 2025. NYSLRS is urging all retirees and beneficiaries who still receive pension checks by mail to enroll in its Direct Deposit Program. Read more.

Non-profit institution claim of being exempt from the wage orders under New York States Labor Law §652(3)(b)" rejected

Home health aides [Plaintiffs] employed by the Defendants, alleged, among other things, that Defendants failed to pay them the New York State minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay in violation of New York State Labor Law §§663 and 650 et. seq. and 12 NYCRR §142-2.4. 

Defendants submitted documentary evidence showing their certifications electing to pay the statutory minimum rate in lieu of minimum wage orders pursuant to Labor Law §652, and claimed non-profitmaking institution status within the meaning of Labor Law §652(3) and thus were "exempt from the wage orders" under Labor Law §652(3)(b).

The Appellate Division said that even if the Defendant's certifications were sufficient to show that Defendants are a non-profitmaking institution exempt from the wage orders under Labor Law §652(3)(b), Supreme Court correctly determined that this exemption is also contingent on Defendants first showing that they "pa[id] and continue[d] to pay" Plaintiffs the statutory minimum wage.

Plaintiffs had alleged that Defendants had paid them for only 13 hours of work when they worked 24-hour shifts, which effectively reduced their hourly rate to an amount "well below New York's statutory minimum wage for the period 2019 to 2021". 

Finding that Defendants failed to submit evidence disputing Plaintiffs' allegations, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's decision denying Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Labor Law action, with costs.

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted local government and school audits on the Internet

On November 20, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

Town of Elmira Fire District No.1 – Long-Term Planning (Chemung County)

District officials did not establish or adopt up-to-date long-term capital and financial plans. The district had five vehicles at or beyond their useful life estimates in 2025. Auditors estimated that the total vehicle replacement cost of these five vehicles was approximately $2.3 million in 2025. However, the reserve fund balance totaled $971,000 as of Dec. 31, 2024. If all five vehicles at or beyond their useful life estimates were replaced in 2025, the district may face a shortfall of approximately $1.3 million. 

Because district officials did not maintain a long-term capital plan for vehicles or plan for future financial operations, the board’s ability to effectively manage the district’s finances was hindered. Therefore, potential large increases to real property tax levies may occur when assets are needed in the future. As a result of the audit, the board created a new capital plan that projected reserve contributions, vehicle replacement costs and useful life through 2054.

Richburg-Wirt Fire District – Board Oversight (Allegany County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. Specifically, the board did not develop and adopt required policies, including an investment policy, a procurement policy and a code of ethics. It did not use reserve funds in a transparent manner and could not support that transfers totaling $36,611 were adopted through board resolutions and that public hearings were held, when required. The board also did not audit the treasurer’s records or ensure all of its members completed mandatory oversight training within the required time period. 

In addition, the board did not use competitive bidding for the purchase of an off-road utility vehicle for approximately $28,000 as required, and may have paid more than necessary.

Town of Cherry Valley – Budget Review (Otsego County)

Auditors determined that the town’s preliminary budget significantly underbudgeted the appropriations for the Cherry Valley Community Health Center. Although all other significant revenues and appropriation estimates were considered reasonable and accurate, auditors identified long-term financial concerns regarding the lack of recurring revenues to fund recurring expenditures. 

The 2026 preliminary budget includes an estimate for health center appropriations of $495,000 in the general fund. Auditors’ projection of health center expenditures for 2025 is approximately $1 million. 

The board’s unrealistically low estimate for health center expenditures enabled the board to lower the town’s tax levy in the preliminary budget. However, without a source of additional revenues for the health center, the board could nearly deplete the town’s general fund resources by the end of 2026.

West Irondequoit Central School District – Emergency Drills (Monroe County)

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

District officials did not conduct all required bus drills and did not ensure all students participated in bus drills. Officials also did not file the required annual certification for bus drills or properly notify parents of drills as required in 2024-25. Without adequate emergency instruction and training, district officials cannot ensure that staff and students are prepared for emergencies. 

Additionally, without properly notifying parents in advance of building drills, parents may not have sufficient information to ask questions about procedures or be prepared to discuss the drills with their children.

Newark Valley Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Tioga County)

The review assessed the district’s progress in implementing the recommendations in the audit report, Newark Valley Fire District – Board Oversight (2020M-30). The audit determined that district officials, needed to improve controls over hall rentals, did not adopt an investment policy and update the procurement policy, retain documentation of quotes in compliance with the procurement policy, provide for an annual audit of the treasurer’s records and ensure that the treasurer filed its required annual financial information within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year. 

The audit included five recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s financial operations. Of those, two recommendations were implemented, one recommendation was partially implemented, and two recommendations were not implemented.

Hunter-Tannersville Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Greene County)

The review examined the district’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit report, Hunter-Tannersville Central School District – Network User Accounts and Information Technology Contingency Planning (2022M-125). The audit determined that district officials did not adequately manage or monitor nonstudent network user accounts or develop a written IT contingency plan. 

To help officials improve their controls over nonstudent network user accounts and be prepared for system disruptions, the audit included a public report that contained five recommendations and confidentially conveyed sensitive IT control weaknesses and recommendations. The district fully implemented all five recommendations contained in the public audit report, auditors determined. 

Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing the recommendations related to the sensitive IT control weaknesses, and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

In seeking to dismiss an action brought under color of CPLR 3211(a)(5) as untimely, the moving party must show that the controlling statute of limitations has expired

In this CPLR Article 78 action Petitioner sought judicial review of a determination of the Town Board [Town] which had adopted the report and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer's finding accused Petitioner guilty of 12 specifications of misconduct and incompetence, and terminated the Petitioner's employment as a police officer. Supreme Court, however, issued an order and judgment granting the Town's motion to dismiss the Petitioner's Article 78 action challenging the Town's decision as untimely and dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 action. Petitioner then appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, with costs, explaining:

1. "On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired, the moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action has expired;

2. "The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period; and

3. "Unless a shorter time is provided in the law authorizing the proceeding, a four-month statute of limitations is generally applicable to proceedings pursuant to CPLR Article 78".

In this instance, the Count's Police Act, as amended, stated that the review of a disciplinary action, the "conviction of any member of such police force" shall be presented to the court "within sixty days after the conviction". 

The Appellate Division's decision, noted that the Town "had established, prima facie", that the instant proceeding was time-barred by showing that the petition was not filed within 60 days from the Town's final  determination and Petitioner failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the proceeding was timely commenced," opined that "[I]t is well settled that an argument 'may not be raised for the first time before the courts in an article 78 proceeding'".

Finding that Petitioner failed to raise his contention that his disciplinary proceeding was not governed by the County Police Act until the Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court should not have considered that issue and then concluded that Supreme Court had properly granted the Town's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition as time-barred and correctly dismissed the proceeding.

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

A retirement system member's timely designation of the party or entity to receive the member's death benefit is critical

In an Article 78 action involving the payment of a death benefit by the New York City Employees' Retirement System [NYCERS] involving competing claimants, one of Plaintiffs seeking the death benefit appealed a Supreme Court's decision granting NYCERS' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Plaintiff's claimed decedent [Decedent] had been employed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and was a member of NYCERS. In 1980, Decedent submitted a designation of beneficiary form to NYCERS designating his daughter and his mother as his beneficiaries for an ordinary death benefit [ODB] which was to be paid to the designated beneficiaries if the NYCERS member died while in service.

In 2008, Decedent submitted a designation of beneficiary form designating Plaintiff, Decedent's spouse, as his beneficiary for the ODB. Decedent also checked a box on the 2008 designation form stating that he was nominating his estate as his  beneficiary, which was accompanied by an acknowledgment that a NYCERS member could not designate both an individual and the member's estate as beneficiaries. 

By letters sent in August 2008 through October 2008, NYCERS notified Decedent that the 2008 designation was invalid because he had designated both the Plaintiff and his estate as beneficiaries and that the Decedent needed to complete a new designation of beneficiary form. Decedent failed to complete and file a new designation of beneficiary form with NYCERS.

In early 2017, Decedent submitted an application for service retirement to NYCERS at which time Decedent had the option of designating a beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive a postretirement death benefit [PRDB] upon his death, or in the absence of such an election, NYCERS would issue the PRDB to the beneficiary or beneficiaries who were designated to receive the ODB. Decedent did not designate a beneficiary to receive the PRDB.

Decedent died in May, 2017 and NYCERS then informed the Decedent's daughter and his mother that they were entitled to the PRDB by virtue of their status as ODB  beneficiaries. 

In March 2018 Plaintiff inquired as to her entitlement to the PRDB. NYCERS responded, notifying Plaintiff that although the Decedent had named her as a beneficiary, he had also designated his estate as a beneficiary, and, therefore, the designation was "invalid" and she was not entitled to the PRDB.

In June 2019, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against NYCERS seeking a judgment declaring that NYCERS is obligated to pay the PRDB to the Plaintiff. NYCERS moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, contending that Plaintiff could have commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge NYCERS's determination that the 2008 designation was invalid and the Plaintiff was not entitled to the PRDB and that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applied. However, as the action was not commenced within the four-month period, Supreme Court granted NYCERS's motion, determining that the action was time-barred and Plaintiff appealed Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, explaining that:

1. On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired; and

2. "The burden then shift[s] to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely'".

In addition, the Appellate Division noted that "Where a declaratory judgment [or other] action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period" and thus where as is here the situation, "a proceeding could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies. The Appellate Division observed that as "Plaintiff correctly concedes," the four-month statute of limitations applicable to a proceeding commenced pursuant to CPLR Article 78 applies, and Plaintiff could have commenced such a proceeding to challenge NYCERS's determination that the 2008 designation was invalid".

In the words of the Appellate Division:

a. "A challenge to an administrative determination must be commenced within four months of the time the determination is 'final and binding upon the petitioner;

b. "A determination is final and binding within the meaning of CPLR 217 when the decisionmaker arrives at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; and

c. The statute of limitations "does not begin to run until the petitioner receives notice of the [final] determination".

Following further discussion concerning the running of the several statutes of limitations involved in this situation, the Appellate Division concluded that "Supreme Court properly granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss [Plaintiff's] complaint as time-barred".

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

The New York State Bar Association's Local and State Government Law Section's 2026 Program

 

Join/Renew

Thursday, January 15, 2026 New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 6th Ave, New York, NY Register Now Book Hotel We’re excited to share the latest updates for the Local and State Government Law Section's Annual Meeting programming. New details have been added to help you make the most of your experience. Be sure to register today and secure your place at this year’s event.  Section events include:  Local and State Government Law Section MCLE Program Thursday, January 15 | 8:45 a.m. - 4:15 p.m. Join us for this year’s annual meeting which will cover hot topics and the latest developments in municipal law including, disadvantaged communities under the CLCPA, cybersecurity, labor, land use and zoning, home rule, and ethics. Special Events Presidential Summit MCLE Program Wednesday, January 14 | 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Constance Baker Motley Symposium Wednesday, January 14 | 4:00 p.m. -  6:00 p.m. President's Reception: A Celebration of the 150th Anniversary Wednesday, January 14 | 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. This email was sent to NYPPL by the New York State Bar Association One Elk Street Albany, NY, 12207, USA and has been posted by NYPPL Pro Bono.  Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

Correction officer found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging unprofessional and threatening misconduct terminated from service

A County Department of Probation probation officer [Petitioner] was served three disciplinary charges alleging behavior that was "unbecoming an employee and/or constituted violations of the employer's workplace violence policy and anti-harassment policy". 

Following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer issued a report in which he found Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and recommended Petitioner's dismissal from service. The Director of the County Department of Probation [Director] adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner's employment.

Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Director's determination, which action was then transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804[g]. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision, observing that it was  supported by substantial evidence". 

The disciplinary charges against Petitioner essentially relate to three incidents, and extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing addressing each of them. 

The first incident involved a heated interview between Petitioner and one of the probationers he was supervising. Numerous witnesses testified that Petitioner commenced "yelling" at the probationer, accusing him of lying, barring him from leaving despite having no basis for doing so and eventually demanding to know whether he wanted "to take [it] outside". The proof submitted reflected that the interview became so contentious that others intervened to de-escalate the situation and separate the two individuals. The probationer was subsequently transferred to the caseload of another probation officer.

The second incident involved another probation officer who alleged Petitioner's behavior to be threatening and she filed a formal complaint against Petitioner with the agency's human resources office.

The testimony following a third incident, which involved Petitioner and a different probation officer, reported that the probation officer was "uncomfortable around [Petitioner] due to his prior behavior and decided to wait in her vehicle until he went inside'. The probation officer testified that when she finally got out of her car, "Petitioner also got out of his vehicle and waited for her by the stairs to the employee entrance" and another probation officer "was worried enough about what might happen next that she began recording audio on her phone, and that recording was entered into evidence at the hearing". 

The probation officer testified that she found the "incident so disturbing that she immediately reported it to her supervisor" and, like the probation officer who had been involved in the earlier incident, filed a formal complaint about it.

The Appellate Division opined that "Without belaboring the point further, this proof of [Petitioner's] unprofessional and threatening conduct" during these several incidents reflected that Petitioner "had engaged in conduct unbecoming a County employee in numerous respects".

Although Petitioner presented testimony that challenged aspects of the other witnesses' accounts and generally attempted to put his behavior in a more favorable light, the Hearing Officer indicated that he found Petitioner to be "wholly incredible in his testimony" and "credited the proof that [Petitioner] had engaged in extensive misconduct. 

The Appellate Division's decision concluded by noting Petitioner's "demonstrated pattern of unprofessional and aggressive behavior, for which he failed to accept any responsibility or indicate a willingness to modify in the future", and, citing Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 13 AD3d 851, and other Appellate Division decisions, held that the penalty of termination "was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness.".

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

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending November 14, 2025

Data Solutions for Faster Aid Delivery Help eligible individuals gain quick, reliable access to vital services like food and healthcare. Learn More 

Empower Individuals and Families to Achieve Stability and Self-Sufficiency Use Data-Driven Insights to Provide Faster and Easier Access to Vital Social Services. Learn More

ROI You Can Prove: Making the Case for Modern Identity Systems Modern identity systems are critical to secure, digital-first government—but funding them takes a clear business case. This guide walks through a realistic five-year cost-benefit analysis for digital identity systems in the public sector, showing how agencies can forecast ROI, reduce fraud, and accelerate digital transformation. DOWNLOAD

Building Whole-of-State Cybersecurity: A Maturity Model for Shared Resilience This new paper outlines how states can evolve from foundational security practices to advanced, optimized operations — leveraging automation, AI, and shared intelligence to reduce risk and improve response times. DOWNLOAD 

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

See How Coordination Brings Connectivity Back After Natural Disasters  Restoring connectivity is essential to recovery. A new docufilm follows broadband crews working alongside utilities and government partners to bring communications back. Watch the Film

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

Q&A: Beyond Silos: Optimizing Whole-of-State Defense This Q&A explores how a whole-of-state approach can unify security efforts across departments, while optimizing limited resources.  DOWNLOAD

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

On August 13, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Serven Volunteer Fire Company – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not ensure financial activities were properly recorded and reported and resources were adequately safeguarded, which increased the risk that errors or irregularities could occur and remain undetected and uncorrected. The board did not ensure that the bylaws were adequate or enforce their limited financial provisions, establish supplemental financial policies or procedures, conduct a thorough audit of bills or conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s books and records. The treasurer did not solely receive and deposit all money as required and allowed a member to handle hall rental revenue.

Border City Fire District – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, the former district fire department chief, who was also a director of the Border City Hose Company, entered into an unauthorized contract with a private corporation and kept an unauthorized bank account into which he inappropriately deposited and withdrew district money. The board did not ensure all goods and services were procured in compliance with state law, district policies or in the best interest of taxpayers. The board did not oversee the chief or ensure the treasurer received, accounted for and dispersed all district money.

Border City Hose Company – Financial Oversight (Seneca County)  Company officers did not provide oversight of company financial operations by performing even the limited oversight responsibilities outlined in the company’s bylaws. Certain officers hindered the treasurer’s ability to perform his fiscal responsibilities by designating themselves as recipients and custodians of most company money. As a result, company money was not always properly accounted for, and a director, who was also the Border City Fire District Fire Department chief, inappropriately used company funds for his personal benefit.

Henderson Fire District – Financial Activities (Jefferson County) The board did not adequately monitor financial activities or ensure the treasurer maintained appropriate records and reports. Auditors determined the treasurer did not prepare accurate and timely bank reconciliations for the general fund checking account and did not reconcile the three interest-bearing savings and money market accounts. The treasurer did not provide the board with a detailed listing of all funds received and disbursed during the month or balance sheet reports. The treasurer also did not file annual financial reports with the State Comptroller’s Office for 2019 through 2024.

Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District – Claims Auditing (Steuben County) The claims auditor did not properly audit all claims prior to payment. Of the 2,943 claims totaling $23.7 million, auditors reviewed 202 claims totaling $1.4 million and determined that 105 claims totaling approximately $804,000 should not have been approved by the claims auditor for payment. While auditors were able to determine that each of the 202 claims was for a proper district purpose, the board had no assurance that claims approved by the claims auditor complied with its written policies and that each purchase was for a proper district purpose.

###