Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed

In this CPLR Article 78 Petitioner sought judicial review of a determination of the City of Newburgh [City] to adopt the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 in which the hearing officer found the Petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and recommended the termination of Petitioner's employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the City's decision.

City had filed an answer to Petitioner's appeal with objections in point of law, including that the Petitioner failed to serve a notice of timely claim as required by Section C6.47 of the City's Charter. Petitioner thereupon moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim. 

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). The Appellate Division, however, vacated so much of the Supreme Court's order as granted the Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, dismissed the Article 78 proceeding and ordered one bill of costs to the City.

The Appellate Division, citing Clayton Indus., Inc. v City of Newburgh, 17 AD3d 309, noted that Section C6.47(A) of the City's Charter provides that with respect to non-tort claims:

1. No action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless "a written verified claim ... was served on the City ... within three months after the accrual of such claim";

2. Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City; and

3. Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed.

Noting that it is undisputed that Petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued as required by Section C6.47 of the City Charter , "unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "...  since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the [Petitioner's] motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim ... and it should have dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the [Petitioner] failed to timely serve a notice of claim as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh".

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

Determining if statements between an employee and the employee's employer constitute slander per se

In this action, Plaintiff and third-party defendant, a Town employee [Employee], became embroiled in a personal dispute after the Town prohibited Employee from using the Town's equipment to move certain gear associated with a concession stand business that Employee operated on property maintained by the Town.

Employee sought and obtained a decision by a New York State Supreme Court justice which denied the Town's motion for summary judgment dismissing Employee's complaint and granted Employee's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Employee's complaint, which asserts a single cause of action, slander per se. Town appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's decision "on the law without costs", granted Town's motion to dismiss the Employee's appeal and dismissed Employee's complaint.

Turning to the issue of whether the Employee's statements made during the incident are actionable, the Appellate Division said it must consider the statements "in [their] applicable context" and "in terms of [their] effect upon the average listener" and [to] determine whether a reasonable listener would consider the statements to connote fact or nonactionable opinion, we must evaluate:

"(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; 

"(2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and 

"(3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal . . . listeners that what is being . . . heard is likely to be opinion, not fact".

In the instant matter the Appellate Division concluded that the Employee's inflammatory insults "are nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole, particularly given the rhetorical manner in which the statements were uttered".

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

Court Notices 75 / Rules of the Chief Administrator

AMENDMENT OF RULE 

Rules of the Chief Administrator 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby amend paragraph 2 of subdivision (b) of section 137.1 and subdivision (B) of section 8 of Appendix A to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, effective November 1, 2026, to read as follows: 

Section 137.1. 

Application 

(b) This Part shall not apply to any of the following: 

(2) amounts in dispute involving a sum less than $1,000 or more than [$50,000] $100,000, except that an arbitral body may hear disputes involving other amounts if the parties have consented; 

APPENDIX A. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

Section 8. Selection and Assignment of Neutrals 

 B. Unless otherwise approved by the Board: 

1. Disputes involving a sum of less than [$10,000] $20,000 shall be submitted to one attorney arbitrator; 

2. Disputes involving a sum of [$10,000] $20,000 or more shall be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators, which shall include at least one nonlawyer member of the public.

Posted In the New York State Register, August 12, 2026 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Vol. XLVIII Division of Administrative Rules Issue 32

 

GOVERNOR HOCHUL ANNOUNCES RATIFICATION OF FIVE-YEAR LABOR AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION

 

Contract Approved With Overwhelming PEF Member Support

 

Agreement With PEF Covers 60,000 New York State Employees

 

Agreement Includes Yearly Salary Increases, Increases in Location Pay and Changes in Health Benefits

 

 

On August 18, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced the ratification of a five-year labor agreement with the Public Employees Federation (PEF) which includes approximately 60,000 New York State employees in a wide variety of professional, scientific and technical titles. The agreement, which runs until April 1, 2031, won the approval of 88 percent of PEF members who cast ballots.

 

“Public employees provide vital services every day to New Yorkers everywhere, and this agreement recognizes their hard work, professionalism and contributions,” Governor Hochul said. “New York values its talented public servants, and this agreement underscores my administration’s support and dedication to the Empire State’s public workforce. I thank PEF’s leadership in helping realize this deal, and I applaud PEF’s members for their continued commitment to serving New Yorkers all across this state.”

 

Public Employees Federation President Wayne Spence said, “While contract negotiations can be challenging, we appreciate Governor Kathy Hochul’s leadership in forging an agreement that works for the 62,000 professional, scientific, and technical staff represented by the NYS Public Employees Federation as well as for the residents of New York. We look forward to continuing to work with the Governor to improve the safe, efficient and effective delivery of services for every New Yorker.”

 

The ratified contract includes raises in each of the five years of the agreement, as follows: 4.5 percent, 4 percent, 3.5 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent. The contract also includes boosts to location pay and several other unit-specific payments. Members also will gain 20 hours of paid pre-natal leave and an increase in the cap for sick leave accumulation. The agreement also includes reasonable updates to health insurance that will reduce costs for members by eliminating certain co-pays and providing incentives to use in-network providers.

 

 

###

 

Basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its monthly webinar series for employers and human resources (HR) representatives.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2026, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m., the Board’s Office of the Advocate for Business will present on the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law.

The one-hour presentation will also cover:

• who needs coverage and who does not need coverage,
• how and when to report an injury or illness,
• considerations when hiring independent contractors, laborers, and domestic workers,
• lowering premiums, and
• penalties and where to go for assistance with them

…all topics business owners and other employers, as well as their HR staff, should know about!

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

Click to Register here

More information and contacts

Visit the Advocate for Business section of the Board’s website for additional resources.

You can also call the Office of the Advocate for Business at (518) 486-3331 or email advocatebusiness@wcb.ny.gov.

Having trouble?

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

 

A message from New York State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli concerning the status of New York City’s finances

A message posted on the Internet by New York State's Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli addressing New York City’s finances indicates that the City's finances have been through a tumultuous period in recent years, with significant federal, State and City revenues enabling substantial growth in spending, some of which has been in response to various emergencies. 

In recent months, the City reflected these rising costs more fully, improving transparency and addressing billions in budgetary risks, but revealing an ongoing structural imbalance. Identifying sustainable methods for balancing future budgets will require care to weigh the potential threats of such actions to the City’s fiscal stability, competitiveness and affordability. 

The City’s fiscal fortunes have improved modestly this year on the back of a resilient economy, led by financial services, which has produced robust revenues to help sustain programs and services. Still, the City has gone another year without increasing reserves and faces a spending growth trajectory that will require hard choices if revenues do not come in better than expected. 

Recent cost containment efforts suggest the City does recognize that rising costs for certain expenses, particularly for education and social services, are pressuring City finances, underscoring the need to proactively manage costs to avoid outcomes that worsen its structural budget issues or lead to deterioration in services. Mindful of what is transpiring in Washington, the City must make balanced and prudent fiscal choices while managing its substantial operational needs and encouraging employment and business growth to enhance its economic and tax revenue base. 

The City’s recent move to designate agency staff with generating savings via efficiencies is welcome and efforts at expanding this approach now suggest a recognition of this challenge. Monitoring City staffing and performance indicators and responding to shifting demands for City resources remain critical for ensuring basic services are provided in an efficient and targeted manner. Clear communication to the public about the City’s fiscal challenges, the options available, and the information guiding the City’s efforts to balance its budget will be critical, particularly if the economic outlook weakens or if spending cannot be contained further without service cuts. 

Ultimately, future economic growth in the City, and thereby the State, relies on providing services that improve affordability, quality of life, and opportunity for all residents. As always, my office will continue to closely monitor developments in the City and provide independent analysis to support sound fiscal management. 

Comptroller DiNapoli's Message includes "An Executive Summary" and addresses:

Economic Trends 

Changes Since the June 2025 Plan was announced

State and Federal Actions 

Citywide Savings Programs 

Revenue Trends  

Expenditure Trends 

Debt Service and Capital Spending 

Semi-Autonomous Entities and Other Issues

Click HERE to access the Comptroller's Message posted on the Internet.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 14, 2026 which may be of interest to NYPPL readers and posted by NYPPL pro bono

The Next Benefits Cliff Isn’t Fraud. It’s Overload. Rising federal verification mandates are overwhelming state agency infrastructure. Here’s why legacy systems are failing and how consent-based and automated tools can close the gap. READ NOW

Making Sense of AI in Public Services A guide for choosing between generative AI tools, chatbots, and agentic AI. DOWNLOAD

Nominate a Rising HHS Leader Current leaders of state and local health and human services systems are invited to nominate Deputy Directors and program directors to participate in HHS 2030 programming. LEARN MORE

New York City and the MTA are studying a possible thermal energy network in Lower Manhattan, hoping to capture excess heat from subway platforms and store it for use in public buildings during the winter. Read More

From Threat to Trust: Building Security into Public Workflows Protecting today's public sector means building security into every workflow — not bolting it on afterward. This thought leadership paper explores why embedding security directly into devices and everyday workflows is essential for reducing risk, improving resilience and supporting mission success. Download the full paper to learn how your organization can make security a seamless part of daily operations. DOWNLOAD

How BAM Modernized the U.S. Army with Low-Code A veteran-owned partner delivered a mission-critical app in just six months, work that once would have taken years. Read Case Study

Educator's involuntary transfer to another position in the school district appealed to the Commissioner of Education

Petitioner challenged the decision of the Board of Education of the School District [District] to transfer him to another elementary school building within school district.  He also sought expungement of a counseling memorandum issued by the District in connection such transfer.  New York States' Commissioner of Education, Dr. Betty A. Rosa, held that Petitioner's appeal must be sustained in part.

Petitioner had been employed by the District since 2017 and had tenure as a childhood education and special education teacher. Petitioner had also taught fourth and fifth grade English Language Arts and mathematics at one of the district’s elementary schools [School 1] for several years prior to the 2025-2026 school year.

In August 2025, the District placed Petitioner on paid administrative leave while it investigated a complaint against him alleging “improper interactions” with a fifth-grade student. On October 15, 2025, the District issued a counseling memorandum that, among other things, reassigned Petitioner to a teaching position in a different elementary school [School 2]. 

The memorandum noted that Petitioner “admitted to engaging in some of the behavior” alleged while maintaining that he “did nothing wrong.” An assistant superintendent concluded that Petitioner’s "continued placement at [School One was] inappropriate" and “reassigned” him to School Two.  This appeal to the Commissioner followed.

Petitioner argued that his involuntary transfer to School Two was disciplinary in nature.  For relief, Petitioner asked the Commissioner annul the transfer, reinstate him to his former position, and the expungement of the transfer and counseling memorandum from his personnel file. The District denied that Petitioner’s transfer was disciplinary in nature, arguing that Petitioner was a qualified candidate for the position at issue at School Two.

Initially, the Commissioner addressed two procedural matters, noting that that the Commissioner had not considered new allegations or exhibits or new material or affirmative defenses not set forth in the District's answer; and that the Commissioner did not accept "the new evidence submitted with [District's] memorandum of law or [consider Petitioner’s] evidence offered in response thereto'.

Turning to the merits of Petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner said although a board of education has broad authority to transfer teachers to assignments consistent with their certification and tenure areas, such authority, however, is not unlimited, noting that the New York State Court of Appeals has held that this power may be modified by a “contractual provision” and cannot be made in “bad faith”, citing Matter of Adlerstein v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 64 NY2d 90 and other decisions.

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief. In the instant matter the District issued a counseling memorandum setting out adverse findings against Petitioner and transferred him to a different school “[a]s a result of” such findings".  Based on the plain language of the memorandum, the Commissioner said that she found that District “used reassignment as a means of discipline”.

District had argued that Petitioner’s transfer was made in the best interest of the District because there was “a vacancy in a special education program that was a match for his skill set.”  However, Dr. Rosa said she found the contemporaneous language of the memorandum to be more persuasive evidence of District’s intent than its explanation on appeal.  

Moreover, the Commissioner opined that District had not offered any evidence to suggest that it considered Petitioner a potential candidate for the vacant  position to which Petitioner had been transferred, which vacancy was posted on August 28, 2025, until it completed its investigation into Petitioner’s conduct and that the District merely stated that, at an unspecified time, its “administrative team … determined that [Petitioner] was the best candidate” for the position. The Commissioner then annulled Petitioner's transfer from School One to School Two.

In the words of Dr. Rosa:

"Petitioner also seeks “[e]xpungement of the counseling memo … as it imposes a disciplinary transfer/reassignment without due process.”  While I agree with [Petitioner] that any reference to the disciplinary nature of the transfer should be expunged from his personnel file, he has not met his burden of proving that the counseling memorandum should be expunged in its entirety. “It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving [an adjudicator] to … create the ossature* for the argument, and put flesh on its bones....” Thus, “While the timing of the counseling memorandum is relevant to assessing Petitioner’s transfer, Petitioner has failed to prove that the memorandum, in and of itself, was disciplinary in nature”.

* French: framework.

Finally, Commissioner Rosa opined that she was "compelled to comment on the serious findings contained within the counseling memorandum.  The memorandum recounts numerous breaches of the student/teacher relationship".  Petitioner “is an adult who knew, or should have known, how to interact appropriately with students.” Thus, although I am not privy to the information gathered by [the District] in its investigation, I am skeptical of the superintendent’s conclusion that Petitioner’s conduct “did not warrant [Education Law Section] 3020-a charges.”

The Commissioner sustained Petitioner's appeal and ordered the October 15, 2025, transfer of Petitioner from School One to School Two be annulled, "without prejudice to any further action which may be appropriate under the terms of this decision".

Click HERE to access Commissioner Rosa's decision posted on the Internet.

On August 11, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the local government audits listed below had been posted on the Internet.

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

Blue Point Fire District – Financial Management (Suffolk County) The board did not effectively manage fund balance and capital reserve funds. Because the board did not adopt budgets with reasonable estimates or have a fund balance and reserve fund policy, the board’s intentions regarding fund balance were not clear, reserves may have been overfunded, and real property tax levies may have been higher than necessary.

Moravia Joint Fire District – Procurement (Cayuga County) District officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services in accordance with state law or the district’s procurement policy. Specifically, district officials could not support that goods and services totaling $589,180 were procured in the most economical manner.

Big Flats Fire District No.1 – Procurement (Chemung County) The board and district officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services in accordance with best practices or the district’s procurement policy. As a result, there is an increased risk that goods and services were not obtained at a favorable cost, free from favoritism or for appropriate purchases.

Deansboro Fire District – Claims Auditing (Oneida County) Auditors reviewed 25 claims totaling $51,230. Except for minor discrepancies, which were discussed with district officials, the claims were adequately supported, for proper district purposes and authorized before payment. There were no recommendations as a result of this audit.

Holley Central School District – Building Access (Orleans County and Monroe County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (key fobs). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key fobs in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

Red Hook Central School District – Building Access (Dutchess County and Columbia County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (badges). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Batavia City School District – Building Access (Genesee County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (key fobs). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key fobs in the system.

Central Square Central School District – Building Access (Oswego County, Onondaga County and Oneida County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (badges). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

North Collins Central School District – Building Access (Erie County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (badges). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, non-employee accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Orange-Ulster Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Building Access (Orange County and Ulster County) Orange-Ulster (OU) BOCES officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (badges). Specifically, of the accounts reviewed, OU BOCES had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

New York Mills Union Free School District – Building Access (Oneida County) Except for minor discrepancies, District officials properly managed and monitored the district’s 117 active building access accounts and devices (badges). However, district officials did not ensure that an additional 177 non-employee badges issued for first responders remained active. Although district officials reactivated all 177 badges when auditors brought this issue to their attention, there was a potential risk that first responders could not access district school buildings when needed, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

###

New York law does not bar a federal action that was earlier dismissed by a state court pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata without prejudice

Plaintiff [Appellant] served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (“RIOC”), a public benefit corporation that governs New York City’s Roosevelt Island. 

On June 19, 2020, the New York Governor’s Office terminated Appellant, such dismissal to take effective immediately. That same day a senior adviser to then-Governor Andrew Cuomo informed a New York Post reporter that Appellant had been terminated following a complaint and investigation into alleged offensive comments purportedly made by Appellant. 

Quoting the said adviser as its primary source, a Post newspaper article soon followed captioned: “Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. head fired over ‘racially and sexually offensive’ remarks.” 

Appellant denied the claims attributed to the adviser by the Post. According to Appellant, Appellant's termination was a political reprisal for Appellant’s complaints concerning New York City authorities’ alleged refusal to address weather-related threats to Roosevelt Island. Appellant further alleged that the Governor’s Office sought to discredit her by feeding false allegations to the Post. 

After two unsuccessful state court proceedings, Appellant brought a federal “stigma-plus” constitutional claim for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that her termination and alleged public smearing by public officials deprived her of a liberty interest without due process of law. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court [Circuit Court] said the question before it was "not whether [Appellant] states a meritorious §1983 claim, but whether the [federal] district court below correctly concluded that, under New York law, the doctrine of res judicata precludes [Appellant] from asserting any §1983 claim arising from her termination". 

The Circuit Court concluded that Appellant’s state court dismissals "do not preclude her instant §1983 claim", noting that the state court dismissals adjudicated Appellant’s  discrimination claims on the merits while expressly preserving Appellant’s right to refile her §1983 claim in another forum. 

The Circuit Court explained that under New York law, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a claim that was previously dismissed without prejudice and with express leave to refile — even where other claims arising from the same transaction were dismissed on the merits. 

Accordingly, the Circuit Court reversed the federal district court’s judgment and  remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

Audit reports for the New York State and New York City entities listed below issued on October 10, 2026

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

Department of State – Office for New Americans: Connecting and Providing Immigrants With Legal Services (2023-S-35)

The Office for New Americans (ONA) offers New Americans help with accessing and navigating free services and supports through its grants and contracts with a statewide network of not-for-profit community-based providers. Through nine grant-funded programs, grantees provide referrals to legal service providers and assist New Americans with naturalization applications and citizenship interviews. Auditors identified several areas that ONA should address to improve its ability to connect and provide New Americans with legal services. For example, ONA lacks adequate information to assess and estimate potential unmet need and grantees’ ability and capacity to meet it. Auditors also found limitations in the quarterly reports that ONA requires from grantees that make them difficult to use and compare, as well as inconsistencies in grantees’ reported numbers that represent potential inaccuracies and/or lack of understanding about how to report their activity.

New York City Administration for Children’s Services & New York City Department of Youth and Community Development – Identifying, Reporting, and Providing Services for Youth at Risk of Sexual Human Trafficking in New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-14)
The 2014 federal Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act requires the screening of children within the child welfare system for potential sex trafficking, timely reporting of sex trafficking incidents to law enforcement, and data collection on sex-trafficked and at-risk youth. A prior audit, issued in June 2022, examined whether New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) identify, report on, and provide services for victims of child sex trafficking and those at risk of child sex trafficking. The audit found that ACS officials failed to support that they ensured staff and providers screened children to identify sex-trafficked victims or at-risk youth, and that DYCD does not have procedures requiring its providers to screen youth for indicators of trafficking. ACS and DYCD officials have made limited progress in addressing the issues identified in the original audit report. Of the initial report’s nine audit recommendations, two (addressed to DYCD) were implemented, three (two addressed to ACS and one to DYCD) were partially implemented, and four were not implemented (two addressed to each ACS and DYCD).

State Education Department – English Language Learners Programs (Follow-Up) (2025-F-28)
School districts are required to provide English as a New Language (ENL) service to all eligible English Language Leaners (ELLs) and are required to make Bilingual Education (BE) programs available in all home languages spoken by 20 or more ELLs of the same grade and home language districtwide. A prior audit, issued in September 2024, examined whether the State Education Department (SED) is adequately overseeing whether school districts are providing services to ELLs as required. The audit found school districts lacked BE programs and certified BE teachers, could not consistently provide sufficient documentation to support that ELLs completed the identification process and received required ENL services, and did not always submit accurate data to the Student Information Repository System or share information regarding ELL transfer students. SED officials have made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the original audit report. All seven of the initial report’s audit recommendations were implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – William T. Dillon Child Study Center at St. Joseph’s University, New York: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2024-S-21)
William T. Dillon Child Study Center (Dillon Center) at St. Joseph’s University, New York is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide Integrated Special Class education services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, Dillon Center reported approximately $1.3 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $392,884 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Olympic Regional Development Authority – Security Over Critical Payment Systems (2025-S-23)
The New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority’s (ORDA) mission is to bring economic and social benefits to the Adirondacks and Catskills by managing venues that offer recreational and athletic opportunities. ORDA is subject to New York State Office of Information Technology Services policies and standards. To process credit cards, ORDA must follow the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). Auditors identified areas where ORDA could improve its overall governance of information technology, compliance with PCI DSS requirements, and certain security controls in place to minimize the various risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data, and communicated the details of these findings in a confidential report to ORDA officials.

###

New York State Paid Family Leave regulation update: Construction employees

Effective January 1, 2027, the Paid Family Leave (PFL) law will include a new eligibility standard for certain construction employees who work for covered employer(s) that are under a collective bargaining agreement. The NYS Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) plans to propose amendments to the PFL regulations to help implement this change and align the regulations to the law.

This proposal will be published in the State Register and on the Board’s website. A Subject Number will be issued when it is published.

Questions?

Email: regulations@wcb.ny.gov.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 7, 2026 which may be of interest to readers and reported here by NYPPL pro bono

AI Data Readiness Guide This guide identifies the essential components of AI-ready data governance and offers practical advice for implementing an effective data program. DOWNLOAD

Capital Planning in the Public Sector: Constraints, Community and Countermeasures This guide examines how state and local governments approach capital planning when budgets are constrained and infrastructure needs continue to grow. DOWNLOAD

From Days to Hours: How Chicago’s 43rd Ward Delivered Faster Constituent Services at Scale Chicago’s 43rd Ward transformed constituent services with a unified digital workflow, cutting response times from days to hours while dramatically increasing case resolutions and resident engagement. READ NOW

Deferred Maintenance and Its Impact on Communities This eBook examines the problem of deferred maintenance for America's infrastructure, considers ways to identify deferred maintenance issues early and explores options for addressing them quickly. DOWNLOAD

Making Sense of AI in Public Services A practical guide for public sector leaders choosing between generative AI tools, chatbots, and agentic AI. DOWNLOAD

How Branded Communications Can Improve Government Billing Learn how consistently branded communications can increase constituent trust, improve engagement and support stronger government billing. DOWNLOAD

Applied Intelligence: How High-Performance Workstations Are Driving Public Innovation AI innovation starts with the right infrastructure. Learn how high-performance workstations help government agencies process data faster, protect sensitive information and power AI-driven outcomes. Download the paper to discover practical strategies for modernizing your technology foundation. DOWNLOAD

New York State may not prohibit access to certain Grievance Committee proceedings and records without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality

After the Grievance Committee* informed Plaintiffs-Appellees that any resulting proceedings against twenty-one prosecutors would remain confidential, Plaintiffs-Appellees brought a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action contending that Section 90(10) of the New York Judiciary Law, which by default seals and mandates confidentiality of attorney grievance matters, violates their First Amendment right of access as applied to their complaints.

A federal District Court had ruled that a First Amendment presumption of access attaches to formal disciplinary hearings in the Second Department to records necessary to understand those hearings and to the final dispositions by the Grievance Committee. As  Section 90(10) impermissibly interferes with that right, the District Court found the New York State statute to be unconstitutional as applied against Plaintiffs-Appellees’ complaints. 

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, [Second Circuit] explained that, despite the State’s contentions otherwise, Plaintiffs-Appellees’ claims are ripe and abstention, pursuant to O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), is unwarranted.

The Second Circuit said that it concluded that the experience and logic test supports a qualified, presumptive First Amendment right of access to formal disciplinary hearings,  including "all pertinent records, and select dispositions of the Grievance Committee". 

The Second Circuit also held that New York State may not prohibit Plaintiffs-Appellees’ access to such proceedings and records pertaining to their complaints without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality and affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

* Attorney Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts [“Grievance Committee”], which is one of three such committees for the Second Department.

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