Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
Why Every Government City Manager Needs Better Meeting Documentation Poor documentation erodes trust and slows government action; modern tools help preserve institutional memory. READ NOW
Building and Evaluating an RFP for Digital Grants Software This guide gives public sector professionals the clarity they need to craft and evaluate a digital grants software RFP. Learn how to set expectations, streamline responses, and select a solution that fits your mission and your budget. DOWNLOAD
The New State's Local Government Training staff have been receiving an increased number of reports of fraudulent activity surrounding land use review in communities across the state. These invoices appear to come from the municipality for increased project review costs.
Municipalities with regularly updated municipal websites are required by Open Meetings Law section 103(e) to upload applications and project files before planning and zoning boards to their municipal websites. These applications usually include information about applicants including names, physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, etc.
Scammers have been utilizing this information to access and pull personal information from applications and project files to create and send fake invoices that appear to be from municipalities to applicants before the land use review boards for additional project review costs and/or for county referral fees.
To combat fraudulent activity and protect applicants, while adhering to the requirements of Open Meetings Law, the Division of Local Government Services recommends the following actions:
If you have any questions about this or any other land use or local government questions, the Local Government Training staff is available to provide technical assistance to local officials. Please email localgov@dos.ny.gov or call 518-473-3355 for assistance.
On February 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following State Government Accountability audits had been released:
Click on the text highlighted in Color to access the audit posted on the Internet.
Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Health Homes (2023-S-8)
The Health Home Program, implemented in New York in January 2012, is an optional benefit under the Medicaid State Plan that provides care coordination and case management to certain Medicaid members with chronic health problems.
The Department of Health (DOH) administers New York’s Medicaid program and is responsible for overseeing the program and ensuring Health Home providers comply with federal and State statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and achieve intended results. Auditors found DOH had not consistently followed its monitoring and oversight guidelines for Health Homes to ensure effective delivery of services, nor had it used all available data and measurements to assess the program’s value and effectiveness. Additionally, Health Homes lacked compliance with program policies and procedures, and certain payments made to Health Homes lacked the required support.
Natural Heritage Trust – Security Over Critical Systems (2025-S-25)
The Natural Heritage Trust’s (NHT) mission is to receive and administer gifts, grants, devises, and bequests of real and personal property to further conservation, outdoor recreation, historic preservation, and waterfront and community revitalization. NHT issued its own stand-alone, vendor-hosted website in June 2021 to enhance the user and administrator experience and utilizes a fundraising database to track donor and donation information. Additionally, NHT uses customized donation forms on its website.
Auditors identified areas including governance over Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard requirements and security controls that NHT could improve to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data. Due to the confidential nature of the audit findings, their details, along with four recommendations, were communicated in a separate, confidential report to NHT officials for their review and comment.
State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Charles R. Drew Early Childhood Center, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2024-S-19)
The Charles R. Drew Early Childhood Center, Inc. (Charles R. Drew) is a New York City-based not-for-profit organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Special Class and full-day Integrated Special Class to children with disabilities who are between the ages of three and five years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2020, Charles R. Drew reported approximately $3.2 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $536,185 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.
Office of Children and Family Services – Oversight of Juvenile Justice Facilities (Follow-Up) (2025-F-15)
The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), through its Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth (DJJOY), is responsible for the operation and oversight of nine State-run residential juvenile justice facilities that serve court-placed youth. A prior audit, issued in April 2024, found weaknesses in several aspects of OCFS’ operation of its juvenile justice facilities. Specifically, OCFS had not ensured that certain admission assessments and screenings, including health-related assessments, were completed and documented as required or were done within the required time frames, creating the risk of missed or delayed opportunities to identify or provide care for physical health conditions or mental health concerns youth may have when admitted to DJJOY facilities. Further, OCFS did not ensure that all direct care staff were current with the training to be authorized to restrain youth. OCFS implemented both of the audit recommendations from the initial report.
DiNapoli also announced the release of the following Bureau of State Expenditures audits:
Department of Transportation - Payments to WSP USA Inc.
Auditors examined a sample of expenses from the 11 vouchers totaling $10.8 million the Department certified as appropriate and paid to WSP from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023. Auditors found the Department approved for payment 1,890 labor hours totaling $107,040 where the documentation did not support the amounts billed. Additionally, the Department paid three claims during our examination period for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance totaling $16,659 even though WSP is contractually required to maintain this policy at its own expense.
Department of Health - Payments Pursuant to the Creating Healthy Schools and Communities Program Auditors found inappropriate contractual service and program material expenses. One grantee's subcontractor inappropriately requested specific invoice dates for items totaling $28,664 so the expenses would appear to have been incurred in the previous budget year of the contract, when they in fact were not. Manipulating the invoice dates yielded an overstatement of expenses incurred in the previous budget year, freeing up $28,664 from the current budget year for additional expenses. As a result, this $28,664 payment to the grantee was inappropriate. Auditors also determined that these items could have been purchased directly by the grantee and its subcontractor, rather than through a third party, which resulted in an unnecessary $3,413 expense. The Department also certified that a sample of salary expenses paid to four CHSC grantees were just, true, and correct without obtaining sufficient source documentation from the respective grantees. As a result, the Department approved $100,399 in salary expenses with insufficient documentation.
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services - Payments to Tidal Basin Government Consulting LLC
The contract required Tidal Basin to submit staffing and travel plans for the deployment of consultants. Despite this requirement, the Division could not produce these plans, and the auditors found that the Division's invoice reviewers did not compare the invoices to the plans to ensure the expenses were authorized. As a result, the Division inappropriately certified to the Comptroller’s Office that the $24.1 million paid during the examination period was appropriate without reviewing the approved staffing and travel plans to support that the expenses were authorized by the Division. In addition, the Division certified the travel expenses were appropriate without determining whether consultants were due travel reimbursement. Auditors also found that the Division paid Tidal Basin $11,968 for travel expenses that did not comply with requirements. Lastly, the Division approved 28 vouchers totaling $8.3 million without documenting which charges on the associated invoices were just, true, correct, and appropriate to pay. Auditors faced significant delays, upwards of seven months, in obtaining the necessary documentation from the Division. At one point, auditors paused interviews after actions taken by a Division representative during an interview required executive involvement from both OSC and the Division to resolve.
###
The New York City Police Department [NYPD] demoted Petitioner from probationary captain to lieutenant effective March 17, 2023. On December 12, 2023, the Department, after a disciplinary hearing, approved the finding of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Trials that Petitioner was guilty of employment discrimination and imposed a penalty of the loss of 30 day of vacation.
The Appellate Division unanimously denied Petitioner's appeal of NYPD's disciplinary action taken against Petitioner, finding that substantial evidence supported the Department's determination that Petitioner violated a NYPD policy prohibiting discourteous, disparaging, or disrespectful remarks based on membership in a protected class.
Petitioner had admitted that he stated to a group of subordinates that he "prefer[s] two female officers not riding in the same car" and that "a female officer might not be able to handle some situation[s] ... because most of the female officers don't have upper body strength" and "need a male officer to help in a fight." Two other officers who were present testified that Petitioner also suggested that two women officers, if partnered together, will "gossip."
The Appellate Division said, based on the testimony of Petitioner's two subordinates who witnessed the comments, the NYPD had a rational basis to conclude that Petitioner had made "disparaging remarks" about women in violation of NYPD procedure.
The Appellate Division's decision noted that "... assuming [Petitioner's] preference for mixed-gender patrol assignments was grounded in genuine concerns for officer safety and community engagement, the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded that the message [Petitioner] communicated was that women officers cannot handle themselves in the field".
Further, opined the Court, "Contrary to [Petitioner's] contention, the NYPD need not prove that [Petitioner's] conduct would be actionable under the New York City Human Rights Law in order to discipline Petitioner for making 'disparaging' remarks. On the contrary, the Police Commissioner is authorized "to discipline officers for violations of NYPD rules and codes of conduct", citing the Administrative Code of City of NY §14-115[a]".
As to Petitioner's challenge to his prehearing demotion from probationary captain to lieutenant, the Appellate Division held that the challenge was time-barred because Petitioner commenced this proceeding "more than four months after that decision became final on March 17, 2023" nor did NYPD create any ambiguity about the finality of the decision to demote Petitioner or suggest that it was contingent on the outcome of the disciplinary hearing as "the letter notifying [Petitioner] of [Petitioner's] demotion to lieutenant clearly communicated its effective date."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
On February 20, 2026, the New York State Workers' Compensation Board posted a notice on the Internet concerning New York State Governor Kathy Hochul's announcement of a new statewide effort to streamline regulations and improve government in which the Governor asked New Yorkers for ideas.
Governor Kathy Hochul had earlier announced the launch ing of EXPRESS NY (Expediting Processes and Regulations to Enable Streamlined Services), which aims to tackle outdated and burdensome regulations, policies, and practices that stand in the way of New York State's delivering services.
The State has launched a new portal for New Yorkers to share ideas on reducing red tape by identifying New York State regulations, policies, procedures and practices that add an unnecessary process or burden, or that are simply out of date.
The Governor is looking for recommendations that will:
New Yorkers are encouraged to submit their ideas using the Internet portal highlighted in red above, which will be open until April 3, 2026.
Click press release to read more contained in an Internet posting dated February 13, 2026.
Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW
Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD
Maximizing the Benefits of Low/No-Code Platforms in Government This paper explains how public sector leaders are using LCNC to empower staff, apply automation and simplify legacy tech environments. DOWNLOAD
Navigating the Next Era of Government Work: A Guide for AI Learning and Development This guide shows public sector leaders how to design and implement AI training programs that equip employees at every level -- from frontline staff to senior leadership -- with the skills and confidence to use AI responsibly and effectively. DOWNLOAD
Visibility and Resilience: Embracing Autonomous Technologies in Government State and local agencies face expanding attack surfaces, AI-driven threats and staffing gaps that traditional endpoint tools can’t handle. This guide gives IT and security leaders a clear, step-by-step roadmap to real-time endpoint visibility, faster response and modern automation to protect critical services and boost resilience. DOWNLOAD
4 Ways Government Organizations Are Driving Efficiency Government and education organizations are under growing pressure to do more with fewer resources. This thought leadership white paper explores four proven ways SLED organizations are driving efficiency through modernization, from process mapping and AI-powered automation to cloud adoption and improved constituent experiences. DOWNLOAD
The 2026 State of Online Payments This sixth annual report delivers essential insights into how, when, and why Americans are paying their bills digitally. DOWNLOAD
Simplifying Service Delivery for All: How to Implement Self-Service Tools in Government This publication explores how self-service solutions can transform interactions with government, making services more accessible while reducing administrative burden behind the scenes. DOWNLOAD
How Smart Police Stations Are Redefining Public Service Self-service kiosks are helping law enforcement agencies deliver faster, clearer service by digitizing high-impact workflows and reducing front-desk demands. READ NOW
Making Budget Information Easier to Read, Find, and Use Most residents want to understand how public dollars are used, but traditional budget documents make that difficult. This guide breaks down why static PDFs and technical language limit engagement, and how agencies are rethinking budget and ACFR publishing to make information easier to follow, easier to update, and easier to access. DOWNLOAD
Medicaid & SNAP: How Automation Addresses New Legislative Mandates HHS agencies are facing a perfect storm as they work to improve Medicaid and SNAP program administration. Try UiPath Free
On February 19, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued and posted on the Internet.
Click on the text highlighted in color to access the audit.
Newburgh Enlarged City School District – Financial Management (Orange County)
The board and district officials overestimated certain appropriations, underestimated certain revenues, and made unbudgeted year-end transfers totaling $67 million, which collectively reduced the effectiveness of managing the district’s financial condition. The board and district officials also made it appear they needed more funding to meet operational needs than was needed by appropriating fund balance to balance the budget when the appropriations weren’t needed. Because realistic budgets were not adopted, the board and district officials accumulated significant fund balance. The variances between the budgets district officials presented to taxpayers and the district’s actual operational results during the audit period were approximately $87 million. Of the $67 million in year-end transfers, $50.6 million went to the district’s reserves.
Caneadea Fire District – Treasurer’s Records and Reports (Allegany County)
The treasurer did not record and report all financial transactions in a timely and accurate manner, which increased the risk that improper or unauthorized activity could have occurred without detection or correction. Although auditors did not identify any improper or unauthorized activity, the board did not have sufficient information to effectively oversee the district’s financial operations and make informed decisions because financial records and reports were incomplete and inaccurate. If the board had performed an effective annual audit of the treasurer’s records, the errors and omissions identified by auditors might have been detected and corrected.
Town of Palermo – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Oswego County)
The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the 2021 through 2024 Annual Financial Reports with DiNapoli’s office, as required. The supervisor also did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports. Had the board received complete, accurate and reliable monthly reports and conducted an annual audit of the supervisor’s books, records and documents, it may have identified and potentially helped remedy these issues.
Beekmantown Fire District No. 1 – Investment Program (Clinton County)
Auditors determined that the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid. However, officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. For example, officials did not prepare monthly cash flow forecasts to estimate funds available for investment or solicit interest rate quotes from financial institutions. During the 25-month audit period, the district earned $114 in investment earnings, even though it had an average of $530,000 available to invest each month. Had officials considered alternative legally permissible investment options, the district may have increased the investment earnings by more than $52,000.
Beekmantown Fire District No. 1 – Board Oversight (Clinton County)
The board did not adequately oversee the district’s financial operations related to maintaining accounting records, preparing bank reconciliations, submitting monthly and annual financial reports, auditing and approving claims and performing annual audits. The board did not provide oversight of the secretary-treasurer’s duties related to maintaining the accounting records. Auditors reviewed 257 disbursements for claims paid totaling $222,372 and identified several deficiencies in the records. The inadequately maintained accounting records also prevented the treasurer from being able to properly reconcile the district’s bank accounts during the audit period. The board also did not ensure that the treasurer submitted adequate monthly financial reports or that the treasurer prepared and filed an Annual Financial Report (AFR) each year. As a result, as of Jan. 31, 2025, the district’s AFRs for the 2019 through 2023 fiscal years were between 337 and 1,798 days late.
Village of Churchville – Financial Management (Monroe County)
The board did not effectively manage fund balance in accordance with its fund balance policy, which resulted in the general fund’s unrestricted fund balance exceeding the 30% maximum limit for the past three fiscal years. The board also inappropriately allocated board member and village attorney salaries and benefits totaling $117,709 to the sewer fund instead of the general fund in the 2022-23 through 2024-25 fiscal years. As a result, there is an inaccurate depiction of the actual financial condition of the general and sewer funds. The board also did not adopt or develop comprehensive, written, multiyear financial or capital plans, or a written reserve policy, or receive and review budget status reports, which could have assisted in developing and adopting more accurate budgets and planning for the village’s financial future.
Petitioner, a police officer, filed separate applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as the result of injuries suffered while he was a passenger in a police car that struck a deer.
Both applications were denied by the New York State and Local Retirement System [System] based upon a finding that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer sustained the denials and, upon administrative review, the System affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision. Petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the System's determination.
As an initial procedural matter, the Appellate Division, by majority opinion, indicated it was "unpersuaded by [Petitioner's] argument that the [System's] determination is arbitrary and capricious or lacking in substantial evidence insofar as it was based upon the review of an incomplete record that did not include certain outstanding medical records".
The decision, however, noted that "Petitioner's counsel had several opportunities to admit the outstanding medical records into evidence during the administrative hearing and instead relied upon his client's statement that the Retirement System had all of his records" and never moved the medical records into evidence despite ample opportunity to do so, including even after the Retirement System reminded him that such records were not in evidence."
Under the circumstances, the Appellate Division concluded that the Hearing Officer appropriately decided the applications on the record before it, and the System was justified in rendering the final administrative determination based upon such record.
Turning to the merits of the Systems determination, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Hannon v DiNapoli, 226 AD3d 1122 and other decisions, pointed out that "[i]n connection with any application for accidental or performance of duty disability retirement benefits, the applicant bears the burden of proving that he or she is permanently incapacitated from the performance of his or her job duties".
Further, where, as here, there is conflicting medical evidence, the Appellate Division observed that the System "is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh such evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over another", and its review of the System's determination "is limited to ascertaining whether it is supported by substantial evidence".
Although the said that in its view, although there was medical evidence that could support a contrary conclusion, the rational testimony and opinion of a witness based upon his examination of Petitioner and review of Petitioner's medical records provides substantial evidence to support the determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties and the System was free to credit that witnesses' opinion over that of Ppetitioner's treating physician.
Accordingly, the majority said it found "no reason to disturb [the System's] determination denying [Petitioner's] applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits".
Garry, P.J., dissenting, Mackey, J. concurring in the dissent, said "We do not disagree that the Hearing Officer acted well within his authority at every stage of these proceedings, nor that [Petitioner's] counsel bears primary responsibility for the state of the record. However, arbitrary and capricious review is not concerned with fault. The inquiry is whether the administrative entity's ultimate determination was rational — that is, whether it was made with a sound basis in reason and with due regard to the relevant facts (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Here, [the System] rendered a final merits determination while fully aware that extensive, post-application surgical records — directly bearing on several sites of injury — existed, had been repeatedly referenced in this proceeding, were in the possession of the New York State and Local Retirement System and had never been evaluated. Put another way, the determination being upheld here is not arbitrary because the Hearing Officer acted inappropriately; it is arbitrary because the ultimate question of permanent incapacity was resolved on a record that was universally understood to not reflect the facts and underlying medical reality of [Petitioner's] conditions. In light of these foundational concerns as to the substantive reliability of the determination before us, albeit resulting from counsel's abysmal performance with respect to the outstanding records, we respectfully dissent".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's majority's decision and the minority's dissent.
The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued an order [Vaccine Mandate] requiring, among others, employees of the New York City Department of Education [DOE] to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide proof of such vaccination.
Following arbitration between the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers [UFT], the union representing a majority of teachers in New York City public schools, an arbitrator issued an award [the Impact Award] which established a process for the implementation of the vaccine mandate. The Impact Award provided, among other things, that:
1. "Any unvaccinated employee who has not requested an exemption . . . , or who has requested an exemption which has been denied, may be placed by the DOE on leave without pay";
2. That "[Employees] who become vaccinated while on such leave without pay and provide appropriate documentation . . . prior to November 30, 2021, shall have a right of return to the same school,"; and
3. That beginning December 1, 2021, the DOE "shall seek to unilaterally separate such employees who remained on leave without pay".
On October 2, 2021, Petitioner was placed on leave without pay by DOE after failing to submit proof of vaccination by the deadline. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to vacate the Impact Award and pursuant to CPLR Article 78, to review the DOE's determination dated October 2, 2021, placing Petitioner "on leave without pay, alleging, inter alia, that the DOE violated Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a by doing so without providing Petitioner hearings under those statutes".
DOE cross-moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Supreme Court, among other things, granted the DOE's cross-motion, denied Plaintiff's petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division, noting that Petitioner was not a party to the arbitration between the DOE and the UFT, concluded that Petitioner "does not have standing to seek review of the Impact Award". The Appellate Division then explained, "... contrary to the [Petitioner's] contention, she was not entitled to the hearing procedures outlined in Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a before being placed on leave without pay for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate because the mandate is a condition of employment".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly granted the [DOE's] cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition, denied the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Presidents Day, a federal holiday since 1879, was established to honor George Washington's birthday. Presidents Day, a day to honor all Presidents of the United States of America, was observed on Feb. 22, regardless of which day of the week it fell on. However, the Uniform Monday Holiday Law, which was enacted in 1971, implemented a new policy shifting the observation of certain federal holidays to a Monday, thereby creating more three-day weekends for celebration.
Building and Evaluating an RFP for Digital Grants Software This guide gives public sector professionals FP. Learn how to set expectations, streamline responses, and select a solution that fits your mission and your budget. DOWNLOAD