The date of the lawful service of the final administrative disciplinary decision triggers the running of the statute of limitations to appeal the administrative decision

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to annul the New York City Transit Authority's [Respondent] decision, rejecting Plaintiff's contention that he was entitled to an exemption from the New York City Transit Authority internal disciplinary process and that the disciplinary charges filed against him should have been considered at a  disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. 

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division explained that Respondent's January 31, 2024, decision denying Petitioner's appeal of his disciplinary suspension was final and binding and "put the [Petitioner] on notice that all administrative appeals have been exhausted".  

Noting that Plaintiff commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding on January 30, 2025, nearly one year after the Respondent's "final determination", the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as time barred, pointing out that contrary to Plaintiff's contention, "there was nothing contained in the January 31, 2024 determination that created ambiguity or the impression of nonfinality". 

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

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]

Worker Protection Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] held that the Employee should be awarded relief and civil penalties and recommended that the amounts to be awarded should consist of $3,000 as "employee relief" and $3,550 in civil penalties should be paid by the Employer for violating the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act. Click HERE to access Judge Turilli's decision and recommendation posted on the Internet.

Dismissal of discilipinary charge recommended ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls recommended dismissal of a disciplinary charge filed against an Eligibility Specialist after Employer failed to prove that Employee was excessively absent or that the Employee's absences negatively impacted her department. Click HERE to access Judge McGeachy-Kuls decision and recommendation posted on the Internet.

Medical transportation company pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the first degree for stealing more than $1.8 million from New York State’s Medicaid program

The owner of a Schenectady County medical transportation company pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the first degree for stealing more than $1.8 million from the state’s Medicaid program,

On November 9, 2026, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Schenectady County District Attorney Robert Carney, and Schenectady County Sheriff Dominic Dagostino announced the defendant, Mohammad Chaudhry, is expected to be ordered to pay full restitution and serve three to nine years in state prison.

Chaudhry, 43, indicted in October 2025, was charged with inflating Medicaid bills from January 2020 through September 2024 by submitting claims for rides which never occurred, overbilling for group rides, and lying about the destinations of the trips to inflate their payments.

“Mohammad Chaudhry defrauded the Medicaid program and New York’s taxpayers of nearly $2 million meant to provide health services to New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “He will now pay a steep price for his crimes. I thank District Attorney Carney and Sheriff Dagostino for their partnership in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse of the state’s Medicaid program.”

“The pervasiveness of this type of Medicaid Fraud is disheartening,” Carney said. “This is our second such completed case in Schenectady County and an even larger one was just initiated by arrest. Fortunately Comptroller DiNapoli feels the way we do about these crimes and believes they are most appropriately handled by imprisonment and as much restitution as we can obtain. We owe both to the taxpayers who otherwise pay the costs for these frauds. People contemplating engaging in this type of scheme must be enlightened as to the punishment they will endure for doing so."

Chaudhry is the owner of Angel Medical Transportation, which was enrolled in the Medicaid program. Under Medicaid regulations, patients may use transportation services for legitimate appointments which are then billed to the Medicaid program by the provider. Group rides are not allowed without prior authorization, and approved providers can only bill for mileage once for the group.

Investigators found that Chaudhry fraudulently billed the Medicaid program by claiming payment for purported individual rides which were actually unauthorized group rides and illegally boosted the amount the company was paid. The company also billed the Medicaid program for rides that never actually occurred and falsified the destination traveled to in order to increase payments to the company.

Investigators also determined that patients who were seeking drug treatment were allegedly paid kickbacks by Chaudhry to use his company’s services to facilitate the crimes. In some instances, the cash kickbacks were allegedly used by the recipients to purchase illicit drugs, undercutting the objective of the treatment.

Chaudhry appeared before Judge Matthew J. Sypniewski in Schenectady County Court. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 25.

Assistant District Attorneys Leah Hoover and William Lemon of the Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted the case.

Co-defendant Noah Shook, Chaudhry’s office manager, was accused of paying kickbacks to Medicaid recipients as part of the scam. He is due back in court on Nov. 19.

Over the last 18 months, DiNapoli’s investigations of Medicaid fraud have resulted in 62 arrests and the ordered recovery of over $50 million. 

                                                                        ###

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 filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236

New York State Opens Portal for Large Frontier AI Companies to Register and Comply with RAISE Safety, Transparency and Reporting Requirements

On November 10, 2016 Governor Kathy Hochul launched a first-of-its-kind statewide effort to advance artificial intelligence science and safety – the New York Center for AI Responsibility and Research based at State University of New York’s (SUNY) Binghamton University. The Center will bring together unprecedented academic expertise to advance AI safety research, accelerate scientific discovery, and independently test advanced AI systems for safety and security.

“While the federal government fails to act, New York is leading the way on AI safety and holding big tech accountable,” Governor Hochul said. “The stakes are too high to simply take AI companies at their word. That's why we are bringing together our world-class researchers and the computing power of Empire AI to independently test powerful AI systems, understand their risks and put that knowledge to work protecting New Yorkers.”

Empire AI Board Chair Tom Secunda said, “New York is uniquely positioned to answer one of the defining challenges of our time: ensuring the world’s most powerful AI systems are safe, reliable, and grounded in rigorous science. We are harnessing the power of Empire AI and the collaborative strength of our academic institutions to advance AI research and open new paths to scientific discovery. Independent testing will help researchers understand what increasingly powerful systems can do and how to use them safely. ”

Greg Morrisett of Cornell Tech and Jeannette Wing of Columbia University, two internationally recognized leaders in computer science and cybersecurity, will lead the Center as interim co-directors. At the Governor’s direction, they will bring together more than 80 leading scientists from colleges and research institutions across New York State with expertise in AI safety, security and computer science. The Center, based at Binghamton University, will convene researchers to address AI safety issues and ensure New York is pushing forward not only AI innovation, but also security. The Center is supported by the advanced computing power of Empire AI, Governor Hochul’s $500 million public-private initiative to drive AI research for public good.

The New York Center for AI Responsibility and Research (NYCAIRR) will address the fundamental and growing challenge of assessing the safety, security, and operation of increasingly powerful AI systems. That mission will be pursued through independent testing of frontier AI systems, foundational scientific research, and the training of a new generation of AI safety experts. The Center will aim to evaluate both the safety of today's AI systems, and develop the scientific tools, measurements and standards needed to evaluate increasingly powerful systems as the technology evolves. Its work will help advance the responsible use of AI in fields ranging from medicine and scientific discovery to critical infrastructure, while providing public officials with objective evidence to inform policy decisions about AI safety and accountability.

The Center’s founding mission is to advance the science of AI and use AI to accelerate discoveries across scientific fields. The statewide initiative announced today builds on that foundation, supporting the Center’s research to independently evaluate advanced AI systems. Its research will focus on understanding how these increasingly powerful systems work, developing ways to test their safety and security, ensuring they behave as intended, and exploring how AI can be used responsibly to advance scientific discovery. One of the Center’s first objectives is a national recruiting effort for experts who focus on foundational limits and mathematical theory, formal methods and verification, agentic and complex systems, hardware security and privacy, interpretability and alignment, and scientific AI and biosecurity.

Governor Hochul first announced the New York Center for AI Responsibility and Research in January with a historic $30 million philanthropic gift from a group of donors led by Binghamton alumnus and Bloomberg LP co-founder Tom Secunda, paired with an initial $25 million research investment from SUNY and operating capital from New York State.

Morrisett, Dean and Vice Provost of Cornell Tech, and Wing, Executive Vice President for Research at Columbia University, have spent their careers studying how complex computing systems operate, where they can fail and how to make them more secure. As interim co-directors, they will guide the Center's scientific agenda, oversee its independent evaluation work, and help build a statewide network of researchers who will continue working at their home institutions.

Additionally, the new Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity, and Trust (DIGIT) launched its online portal for large frontier AI developers to register with New York State by January 1, 2027. Under the RAISE Act, all frontier AI developers operating in New York are subject to safety and transparency requirements, with additional obligations for large frontier developers. Large frontier developers are required to register through the newly released RAISE Portal by January 1, 2027. Beginning in January, large frontier developers will also be required to publish safety frameworks on their websites, and all frontier developers will be required to report critical safety incidents and publish model transparency reports. Additionally, DIGIT published a new website outlining requirements for frontier AI developers operating in the state.

This announcement builds on Governor Hochul’s nation-leading AI safety agenda, which also includes implementation of New York’s RAISE Act. Under that new law, large frontier AI developers will be required to register with the state and comply with strict safety, transparency and reporting requirements — including New York’s strongest-in-the-nation requirement to report any critical safety incident within 72 hours. The Governor also established the first-in-the-nation DIGIT Office to implement the RAISE Act and oversee large frontier AI Developers.

New York State Department of Financial Services Acting Superintendent Kaitlin Asrow said, “The New York Center for AI Responsibility and Research represents another important step in advancing AI safety. DFS is proud to lead the implementation of the RAISE Act through the new DIGIT Office. We look forward to working closely with the Center under Governor Hochul’s leadership.”

At the State’s request, NYCAIRR will be able to provide expertise, assessments and evidence that can assist in informing state policy making and oversight of frontier AI Developers. For example, NYCAIRR will coordinate with DIGIT to begin reviewing AI Developers’ published safety frameworks and providing recommendations on ways to strengthen requirements.

SUNY Chancellor John B. King Jr. said, “SUNY is at the cutting edge of advancing AI for the public good. Through Governor Hochul’s steadfast leadership and the Center for AI Responsibility and Research at the State University of New York at Binghamton, SUNY will help ensure New York State is a national and global leader in advancing AI safety and security.”

The SUNY Board of Trustees said, “As AI becomes ever more present in New Yorkers’ daily lives, we have a responsibility to ensure this technology is constantly evaluated and harnessed safely. SUNY is leading the way on research excellence, and through the strong support of Governor Hochul and with institutions like the Center for AI Responsibility and Research at the State University of New York at Binghamton, we will be better equipped to ensure that as AI advances, it will do so in safe and transparent ways that benefit New Yorkers.”

State University of New York at Binghamton President Anne D’Alleva said, “The Center for AI Responsibility and Research at the State University of New York at Binghamton will help New York State lead the nation in AI transparency and security. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Hochul and with gratitude to our alumnus Tom Secunda, Binghamton University is proud to host this transformative center and welcome the world-class researchers who will help us continue to serve as global leaders in advancing the public good.”

In the coming months, the Governor will continue exploring ways to build on the RAISE Act as part of ongoing efforts to further strengthen New York’s nation-leading AI safety laws and regulations.

New York State's Workers Compensation Board continues its free Paid Family (PFL) webinar series

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board continues its free Paid Family (PFL) webinar series for employers/HR professionals and employees to share what’s new for 2027. Each one-hour session will provide an overview of the state’s landmark PFL benefit, who is eligible, and what’s new for 2027 - including the higher maximum weekly benefit amount, new employee contribution rate, and a new eligibility standard for certain construction employees.

The employer session will also cover employer responsibilities and updated resources to assist them.

PFL employer - Register here
Thursday, November 12, 2026
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 10, 2026
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

PFL employees - Register here
Thursday, December 17, 2026
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

 

PFL background

Since PFL began in 2018, benefits have been significantly enhanced to further improve the lives of working New Yorkers and their families, including more time off, more uses for PFL, and more financial security.

PFL is employee-paid insurance that provides employees with job-protected, paid time off from work to bond with a new child, care for a family member with a serious health condition, or assist when a spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent is deployed abroad on active military service.

PFL resources are available

New York State offers complete details on PFL, including forms, fact sheets, benefit calculators and more, at PaidFamilyLeave.ny.gov. Visit the Paid Family Leave Updates for 2027 page for an overview of what’s new, as well as helpful resources for employers.

Sign up to receive PFL news, including information on future webinars, straight to your inbox. Help is also available via a toll-free PFL Helpline at (844) 337-6303, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Having trouble?

If you are having trouble registering for or attending either of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals holds that awarding designated employees three additional days of vacation did not violate public policy against punitive arbitration awards

In this appeal from a judgment by a Second Circuit Federal District Court a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [Circuit Court] affirmed the judgment of the District Court's confirming an arbitration award against the Petitioner-Appellant [the Hospital]. The Hospital was a party to a collective bargaining agreement [Agreement] with the New York State Nurses Association [Union] representing registered nurses [RNs] employed by Hospital's Emergency Department [ED]. 

Under the Agreement, the Hospital’s failure to staff enough nurses on each shift constitutes a “Grid” violation. If this occurs, the Union may file a grievance and proceed to mediation, and then arbitration. The Agreement provides that arbitrators shall have the same remedial authority as an arbitrator under the collective bargaining agreement but "shall not have any power to add to or subtract from or otherwise amend this agreement", which Hospital referred to as the “zipper” clause.

This dispute arose when the Union filed a grievance alleging Grid violations by the Hospital. The Arbitrator subsequently found evidence that the Hospital had committed 143 Grid violations. Interpreting the Agreement to confer the arbitrator with broad remedial power, the Arbitrator awarded three additional vacation days to each full-time RN serving at the Emergency Department. Hospital filed a petition in a Federal District Court [FDC] seeking to vacate the arbitration award, contending that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority and violated public policy by issuing a punitive award. 

The FDC denied the petition and granted the Union’s petition to confirm the award. Hospital appealed the FDC's ruling.

The Circuit Court said it reviews a FDC decision de novo on questions of law and for clear error on findings of fact, noting that Hospital first argued that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority under the Agreement. 

In such cases, Circuit Court said “the arbitrator’s construction of the contract and assessment of the facts that are dispositive.” On review, "we ask 'whether the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement' [and] As long as the arbitrator was even arguably construing or applying the contract ... and did not ignore the plain language of the contract, the award should ordinarily be confirmed” [citations omitted].  

Noting this appeal is controlled by the decision in an earlier case, Hospital v. Union, 180 F.4th 482, a case involved an arbitration of another Grid dispute between the same parties where the presiding  arbitrator relied on a provision identical to Section 3.04(7) in the instant matter "to award nurses on under-staffed shifts in the Hospital’s CardioThoracic Intensive Care Unit a monetary remedy". In the earlier appeal the Circuit Court panel "rejected the Hospital’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her authority", holding that the arbitrator "had “reasonably interpreted” the text to confer broad remedial power, and so she was “arguably construing or applying the contract.”  

In the earlier appeal Hospital had also argued that the monetary remedy adjusted wages in violation of a specific provision setting nurses’ pay and a “zipper" clause that forbade arbitrators to amend the contract. The Panel in the instant appeal noted that in that earlier appeal the monetary award "did not permanently adjust wages . . . or derive a new contract term," but only provided a temporary remedy for the Hospital’s breach of contract which drew upon the Agreement itself, and concluded the award did not violate “the Agreement’s only limitation—the ‘zipper’ clause” in the earlier appeal.

Holding that the same held true in the instant appeal, Circuit Court ruled that the Arbitrator’s vacation award did not amend the contract by deriving a new term, and it was arguably construing the text of the agreement. Accordingly the Circuit Court said it "will not vacate the award for exceeding the arbitrator’s authority" in the instant appeal. 

Turning to the Hospital claim that the Arbitrator's award of "additional vacation days" violated a public policy against punitive arbitration awards, Circuit Court said it had not decided whether a public policy forbids punitive arbitration awards, but “[b]efore considering whether such a public policy exists," the Circuit Court said it must first assess whether the Arbitrator’s monetary award was punitive to begin with. 

To distinguish “compensatory” from “punitive” awards, the Circuit Court Panel said it “look[ed] to the Arbitrator’s subjective intent in issuing the award and the objective nature of the award” and held that "The Arbitrator satisfied the objective prong if he 'made specific factual findings regarding the nurses harms' and tailored the award to make the impacted nurses whole for the harm they suffered.” 

The instant award, opined Circuit Court, was not punitive because “[c]ompensating a nurse for excessive workload is not a penalty or punitive award giving nurses additional pay.” Its objective structure is compensatory and the Arbitrator made detailed findings to identify 143 Grid violations which he found contributed to “excessive workload, unsafe working conditions, or burnout,” concluding that the parties had negotiated the Agreement to avoid precisely those harms, and because the harm was excessive workload, the Arbitrator concluded “the appropriate remedy is three vacation days for each full-time regular Allen ED RNs.” 

Accordingly, Circuit Court held that the subjective and objective elements of the test were both satisfied and "even if there is a public policy against punitive arbitration awards, this award would not violate it".  

After considering Hospital’s remaining arguments, the Circuit Court said it found them "to be without merit, and for the foregoing reasons", affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 

* Judge Debra Ann Livingston, originally a member of the instant Circuit Court panel, did not participate in the consideration of this appeal. The two remaining members of the panel, who were in agreement, determined the matter. 

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision in the instant appeal.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending November 6, 2026

Free Webinar: Getting AI Into Everyday Local Government Work Lessons from 23,000+ active staff users on getting AI from policy into everyday work. Register free

A New Era for Justice Information Sharing This paper explores how cloud, AI and other technological advancements are creating new opportunities for secure justice information sharing. DOWNLOAD

Close the Utility and Local Government Workforce Gap See how intelligent payment tools and digital self-service options can handle routine billing and customer service tasks, giving government staff more time for work that requires their expertise. DOWNLOAD

Big Ideas. Bold Leaders. The Future of Gov Tech Candid conversations with the builders, backers, and leaders shaping what's next in government technology. Watch Now

A Two-Year Analysis of Cyber Readiness in Government Nearly 350 local government professionals reveal where cyber readiness is gaining ground and where gaps remain. DOWNLOAD

Governance for a Sustainable Pension Promise Explore how governance, delegation, and risk management strengthen oversight, improve decisions, and support long-term sustainability. Learn more

New York State local government and school audits issued

On November 5, 2016, 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.

Academy of Health Sciences Charter School – Information Technology Asset Management (Monroe County) School officials did not appropriately inventory, track and safeguard IT assets. Because the board of trustees did not adopt an IT inventory policy, school officials lacked detailed guidance for maintaining the IT inventory listing. As a result, the chief administrative officer and operations coordinator did not maintain a complete, accurate and up-to-date inventory listing to properly account for IT assets.

Campbell Fire Department – Treasurer (Steuben County) The treasurers did not properly collect, deposit, record, disburse and report department funds. As a result, the board of directors and membership lacked reliable information to manage the department’s financial activities, and the board could not determine whether all revenues were properly accounted for and deposited, and whether all disbursements were appropriate.

New Woodstock Fire District – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Madison County) The board did not conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2025. Senior officials were not aware the board should conduct an annual audit, and were therefore unable to state when, if ever, the board last audited the treasurer’s financial records and reports. However, senior officials said they attended the required fire district commissioner training, which should include content about annual audits. In addition, the treasurer did not prepare and file the 2025 Annual Financial Report (AFR) with the State Comptroller’s office within 60 days after the fiscal year end as required by state law. Prior to this audit, the district’s last filed AFR was for the 2019 fiscal year.

Town of Hermon – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (St. Lawrence County) For the collections auditors examined, the clerk generally remitted tax collections and clerk fees to the appropriate parties in a timely manner and properly reported clerk fee collections. However, the clerk did not properly record and deposit all collections.

Village of Brightwaters – Treasurer’s Duties and Claims Audit (Suffolk County) The board did not monitor the treasurer’s financial duties or audit claims before payment. As a result, the village has an increased risk that errors, unauthorized or inappropriate transactions, and the misappropriation of village funds could occur and remain undetected. In addition, the village has an increased risk that goods and services may not be obtained at the lowest possible cost.

Wheelerville Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up Review (Fulton County) The purpose of the review was to assess the district’s progress in implementing recommendations in Wheelerville Union Free School District – Unused IT Asset Inventory, released in May 2022. Of the audit’s six recommendations, district officials fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented five recommendations. District officials fully implemented a recommendation regarding physically safeguarding unused IT assets. However, district officials did not fully implement the recommendations regarding improving policies and procedures, maintaining complete inventory records, conducting periodic physical inventories and ensuring proper disposal practices.

###

A court may set aside an administrative disciplinary penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness

A tenured teacher [Plaintiff] employed by a Central School District [District] was charged with, inter alia, misconduct, conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, and insubordination arising from, among other things, repeated incidents of alleged noncompliance with the District's mask requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic and certain conduct toward school administrators and a colleague.

The District served Plaintiff with a notice of the disciplinary charges and Education Law §3020-a disciplinary hearing was conducted. The hearing officer sustained most of the Charges and Specifications alleged by the District and imposed termination of Plaintiff's employment as the the penalty.

Plaintiff initiated a CPLR Article 75 appeal challenging the hearing officer's findings and the penalty imposed. The District responded with a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 petition. Supreme Court granted the District's motion to dismiss the CPLR Article 75 action,  denied Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the CPLR Article 75 proceeding.

The Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.  The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court decision, holding that the lower court had properly granted the District's  motion to dismiss the petition, had properly denied the Plaintiff's petition, and had properly dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellate Division, citing a number of relevant cases, explained:

1. "Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate", in this instance by Education Law §3020-a, "the determination of the arbitrator is subject to 'closer judicial scrutiny' under CPLR 7511(b) than it would otherwise receive";

2. An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding, such as is here the case, must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary or capricious; and

3. "When reviewing compulsory arbitrations in education proceedings such as [the instant proceeding], the court should accept the arbitrators' credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists".

Finding that the determination sustaining the charges of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, and insubordination was rational, had evidentiary support, and was neither arbitrary or capricious, the Appellate Division held that,  notwithstanding Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, "the proceedings comported with due process" as Plaintiff was given "adequate notice of the charge and the notice was reasonably specific, in light of all the relevant circumstances, to allow for the preparation of an adequate defense".

Further, the Appellate Division's decision noted that "A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness". Although "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been", this "does not provide a basis for ... refashioning the penalty".

The Appellate Division concluded that the penalty of termination of employment "was not so disproportionate to the sustained charges so as to shock one's sense of fairness, particularly in light of the repeated nature of the offending behavior, that it occurred in the presence of students, and the [Petitioner's] prior disciplinary record" and ruled that the Supreme Court had properly granted the District's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition and dismiss the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 proceeding.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals' summary of its decision in the Appeal of Barberan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Town of Eastchester, et al., Defendants-Appellees, is set out below

"Former employee sued the Town of Eastchester to recover for harm he allegedly suffered while employed with the Town of Eastchester Police Department (“Department”), including his ultimate termination. 

"In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Barberan asserted claims for discrimination based on his Hispanic national origin and for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). 

"The district court concluded that Barberan failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, failed to show that the Town’s reasons for the adverse employment actions were pretextual and that the real reason was discrimination, and granted summary judgment for the Town. See Barberan v. Town of Eastchester, No. 19-cv-10983-VR, 2025 WL 962815, at *16, *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025). 

"On appeal, Barberan challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Town only with respect to his Section 1983 and NYSHRL discrimination claims. 

"And as to those discrimination claims, his challenge is limited to his termination (the other claimed adverse actions were abandoned). 

"For the reasons stated below, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED."

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

New York State's Workers Compensation Board continues its free Paid Family (PFL) webinar series

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board continues its free Paid Family (PFL) webinar series for employers/HR professionals and employees to share what’s new for 2027. Each one-hour session will provide an overview of New York State’s landmark PFL benefit, who is eligible, and what’s new for 2027 - including the higher maximum weekly benefit amount, new employee contribution rate, and a new eligibility standard for certain construction employees.

The employer session will also cover employer responsibilities and updated resources to assist them.

PFL employers 

November 12, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 10, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Register here

PFL employees 

Thursday, December 17, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Register here

PFL background

Since PFL began in 2018, benefits have been significantly enhanced to further improve the lives of working New Yorkers and their families, including more time off, more uses for PFL, and more financial security.

PFL is employee-paid insurance that provides employees with job-protected, paid time off from work to bond with a new child, care for a family member with a serious health condition, or assist when a spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent is deployed abroad on active military service.

PFL resources are available

New York State offers complete details on PFL, including forms, fact sheets, benefit calculators and more, at PaidFamilyLeave.ny.gov. Visit the Paid Family Leave Updates for 2027 page for an overview of what’s new, as well as helpful resources for employers.

Sign up to receive PFL news, including information on future webinars, straight to your inbox. Help is also available via a toll-free PFL Helpline at (844) 337-6303, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Having trouble?

If you are having trouble registering for or attending either of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

Selected administrative decisions posted on the Internet by New York State's Commissioner of Education

Decision No. 18,868 Appeal of certain action by the Board of Education of a School District concerning "shared decision-making". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,869 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, involving action by the Board of Education of a Union Free School District involving the Dignity for All Students Act. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,870 Appeal of parents, on behalf of their child, with respect to the  action by a Board of Education of a Central School District concerning a school closure. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,872 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, concerning a Montessori School an immunization issue. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,873 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, addressing actions of the Board of Education of a Central School District concerning student discipline. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Workers' Compensation Board offers NYS Workers' Compensation 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers on November 3, 2026

On November 3, 2026, the New York State's Workers' Compensation Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present a program focusing on the basics of the New York State Workers’ Compensation System, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. This presentation will also cover:

• Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
• How to file a claim
• How to get help with your claim if needed
• Tips and best practices for injured workers

The session is free and there will be time at the end for questions.

Important: When you register, you will automatically receive a confirmation email that includes a calendar invite. Be sure to add the invite to your calendar so you have a reminder! If you don’t receive the confirmation email in your inbox, please check your junk or spam folder.

Register here

for the Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. session.

New York City Department of Education's rejection of an application for security clearance held irrational under the circumstances

A New York State Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking annulment of a determination by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] resulting in an administratively closing Plaintiff's application for a security clearance. 

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, reinstated Plaintiff's Article 78 proceeding and granted the Plaintiff's petition to the extent of annulling DOE's determination and directed DOE to process Plaintiff's security clearance application. This decision of the Appellate Division ultimately resulted in Plaintiff and DOE entering into a settlement agreement resolving* the prior Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was subsequently nominated for appointment to a position by an independent agency that provided such services to DOE. Such employment, however, was contingent  on Plaintiff receiving security clearance with DOE. Plaintiff was then notified that her application was "administratively closed with no determination made," explaining that she had been "nominated for a position as a Speech Pathologist with independent providers" and that based on the terms of the settlement agreement she was not permitted to work as an independent provider. Petitioner challenged DOE's determination by filing a second CPLR Article 78 action. 

It was undisputed that Plaintiff was nominated for a position by Salveo, an agency providing such services to DOE. The Appellate Division, rejecting DOE's claim that Plaintiff had admitted her role to be that of an independent provider, explained that DOE misread Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff, said the Appellate Division, used the phrase to describe the ambiguity at issue and did not concede DOE's interpretation, concluded that DOE's determination rested on its misreading of the settlement agreement. 

* The Appellate Division's decision notes that DOE retained "the right to deny [Petitioner] clearance . . . for any reason, other than the reasons that gave rise to the [prior] litigation."

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 30, 2026

Cybersecurity on a Tight Government Budget? Explore approaches to strengthening cyber defenses without stretching already limited government resources. Learn More

States offer billions in incentives to support economic development each year Focusing on job training and other services instead of cash could improve the cost-benefit ratio, according to a new paper. Read More

Webinar: Make your first Year of Brownfields Funding count Learn practical strategies to manage funding effectively, meet EPA requirements and support future funding opportunities. Register today

Twenty-two states have adopted laws expanding opportunities for accessory dwelling units But passing laws doesn't always mean more homes get built. Read More

A New Era for Justice Information Sharing This paper explores how cloud, AI and other technological advancements are creating new opportunities for secure justice information sharing. DOWNLOAD

Close the Utility and Local Government Workforce Gap See how intelligent payment tools and digital self-service options can handle routine billing and customer service tasks, giving government staff more time for work that requires their expertise.

DOWNLOAD

How the City of Newport News Is Raising the Bar for Open Government  Facing a surge in public records requests, Newport News centralized FOIA management to improve transparency, streamline compliance and strengthen public access to government information. READ NOW

Modernizing CJIS Compliance: A Path to Secure Information Sharing and AI Readiness This guide breaks down what agencies need to know about CJIS Security Policy Version 6.1, including new requirements for encryption, vulnerability management, incident reporting and information-sharing agreements. DOWNLOAD