Recent disciplinary hearing decisions by New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing's Administrative Law Judges

Below are summaries of two recent disciplinary hearings conducted New York City Administrative Law Judges serving with the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing [OATH].

1. OATH Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Julia Davis recommended the termination of the employment of a Behavioral Health Associate [Respondent] who was charged with (a) gross misconduct [striking a patient in the face] and (b) excessive absenteeism. 

Respondent had attempted to stop a patient from banging on the hallway window of a nurses’ station, and surveillance video showed Respondent striking the patient twice in the face. Respondent denied striking the patient, arguing that he acted in self-defense, which the ALJ found was belied by the video evidence showing the contrary. 

In assessing the penalty to recommend to the Appointing Authority, Judge Davis opined that Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history was outweighed by the seriousness of Respondent's misconduct and his inability to take responsibility for his actions. 

Although the ALJ found that Appointing Authority's evidence was insufficient to sustain the excessive absenteeism charge, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respondent be terminated from his employment based on her finding the Respondent guilty of gross misconduct in striking the patient twice. 

Click HERE to access Judge Davis' findings and findings and recommendation with respect to the penalty to be imposed on Respondent.

2. ALJ Christine Stecura recommended the termination of the employment of an Eligibility Specialist [Respondent] found guilty of being absent from work without authorization [AWOL]. 

The Appointing Authority [Petitioner] had charged the Respondent with being AWOL commencing in January 2025. Respondent had initially requested a medical leave of absence for a six-week period, which Petitioner denied due to a lack of supporting documentation. The ALJ found that Petitioner had established that Respondent was absent from work without approval for over 14 months and that such absence was excessive and subject to disciplinary action. 

The ALJ also found that Respondent had failed to provide corroborating lay, medical, or expert testimony, or supporting medical documentation, to demonstrate any alleged current and ongoing disability. 

Click HERE to access Judge Stecura's findings and recommendation with respect to the penalty to be imposed on Respondent.

Appellate Division holds that the body that ruled on disciplinary action taken against an employee pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(2) lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter

The Civil Service Law §75 Disciplinary Hearing Officer [HO] found the Plaintiff bringing this CPLR Article 78 action guilty of misconduct and incompetence and recommend Plaintiff's termination from her employment with City of Rochester Police Accountability Board [Board]. The Board adopted the HO's findings and  recommendation. 

Plaintiff initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 action:

1. Alleging the disciplinary action taken against her failed to comply with provisions set out in Civil Service Law §75(2) as the Board, which (a) adopted the HO's findings concerning the disciplinary charges served on Plaintiff and (b) accepted the HO's recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed, dismissal of Plaintiff from her position, lacked jurisdiction to discipline her; and

2. Alleging the City's administrative responses to her requests for documents pursuant to  New York State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] provided inadequate and contained redacted materials without proper justification.

With respect to Plaintiff's argument addressing the Board's alleged lack of jurisdiction as a result of a failure to comply with the relevant provisions of §75, the Appellate Division said it agreed with Plaintiff's arguments, noting that a disciplinary hearing on §75 charges preferred against an employee "shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose". In the words of the Appellate Division, in the absence of "a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing, 'the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee'". 

As to Plaintiff's claims that "... a number of her FOIL requests were improperly denied and that the City provided inadequate responses and redacted materials without proper justification", the Appellate Division noted that "There is a presumption that government documents are available for inspection, and the burden rests on the agency resisting disclosure to demonstrate that they are exempt by articulating a particularized and specific justification".

With respect to the disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff, the Appellate Division unanimously annulled the Board's disciplinary decision "on the law without costs to the extent that it terminated petitioner from her employment" and granted Plaintiff's petition "to the extent that [Petitioner] is reinstated to her position with back pay, less any unemployment benefits received", and remitted to Supreme Court for further  proceedings in accordance with its decision.

With respect to Plaintiff's concerns with the City's response to her FOIL requests, the Appellate Division said that "Because the record before [it] is insufficient to enable [the Court] to determine whether a legitimate basis existed for the City's responses to those portions of [Plaintiff's] requests, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to Supreme Court for in camera review of the requested FOIL items and a determination as to the merits of Petitioner's FOIL claims.

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 9, 2026

Recent sexual harassment court decisions Posted on the Internet by Labor and Employment Daily. Click HERE to access this listing.

Preparing for Medicaid's New Redetermination Mandates This paper explores practical strategies for preparing for more frequent eligibility reviews, strengthening constituent communications and reducing administrative burden without sacrificing the beneficiary experience. 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

What Drives Effective Government Leaders? Go beyond the headlines and hear candid conversations with Governing’s Public Officials of the Year. Listen to The Common Thread 

Keeping Public Services Accessible During Emergencies Power outages, severe weather, and equipment failures don't stop the need for public services. Learn how agencies can prepare for unexpected disruptions while maintaining reliable communications with staff and the communities they serve. DOWNLOAD 

As more colleges shut down, communities are looking to convert their campuses into housing. Zoning, costs and neighborhood opposition can make that harder than it sounds. Read More 

A Guide to AI Recruitment Technology for Public Sector Hiring Learn how AI-assisted recruiting can help agencies identify qualified candidates sooner, reduce sourcing work and manage the compliance and security considerations that come with hiring technology. DOWNLOAD 

Empowering Staff in the Field This guide explains how mobile-first augmented field operations systems infuse artificial intelligence, automation and real-time information into every stage of fieldwork. DOWNLOAD

5 Public Safety Trends for 2026 From AI-powered situational awareness to integrated real-time crime centers, this paper reveals how agencies can modernize systems to keep pace with escalating risks.  DOWNLOAD

New York's State Comptroller post State Agency Audits on the Internet

On October 9, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli  announced that the following State Government Accountability audits were released.

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

Office of Information Technology Services – Inventory Controls (Follow-Up) (2026-F-3)
The Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) is responsible for keeping an accurate inventory of hardware and software for the 50 state entities it fully supports. ITS also provides partial support to 38 state entities and operates 117 stockrooms statewide. A prior audit, issued in February 2025, found that ITS does not have the necessary controls in place to accurately and completely account for all workstations and other hardware assets for which it is responsible. Auditors found significant weaknesses related to inaccurate inventory, missing devices, and a lack of security over equipment and the information stored on devices at ITS stockrooms. ITS has made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing all eight of the initial report’s recommendations.

State Education Department – Access to Preschool Special Education Services (Follow-Up) 2026-F-5
Providing special education programs and services at an early age helps prepare a child with a disability to enter school ready to learn. Preschool special education is overseen by the State Education Department’s (SED) Office of Special Education, which works to promote educational equity and excellence for students with disabilities. A prior audit, issued in December 2024, found that preschool special education students may not be receiving all required services within required time frames, or, in some cases, may not be receiving them at all, due to waitlists maintained by local school districts resulting from a shortage of providers. SED made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, three were implemented and four were partially implemented.

Department of Environmental Conservation – Oversight of Dam Safety (Follow-Up) 2026-F-9
To safeguard against loss of life and property due to flooding and dam failures, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) manages a program that involves safety inspections, permitting, and regulatory compliance for approximately 6,500 dams throughout the state. A prior audit, issued in February 2025, identified areas where DEC can make improvements in oversight and enforcement of compliance with the state’s dam safety regulations, including Emergency Plans, Engineering Assessments, and Annual Certifications. DEC made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, partially implementing the one recommendation.

State University of New York – Oversight of the Educational Opportunity Program (Follow-Up) (2026-F-8)
The State University of New York (SUNY) operates the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), which provides access, support, and financial aid for disadvantaged students. A prior audit, issued in March 2025, found that while SUNY was monitoring EOP and campuses were generally using the funds for allowed purposes, there were some unallowable or insufficiently supported transactions and a lack of documentation showing that certain counseling services were provided to students. SUNY made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing both of the initial report’s recommendations.

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services and Office of Information Technology Services – Next Generation 911 Services (Follow-Up) (2026-F-14)
Next Generation 911 (NG911) is an upgrade to New York’s emergency communications system that transitions to a digital internet protocol-based network, which is faster and more resilient than the original analog infrastructure. The complex transition requires coordination among a variety of emergency communications, public safety, legislative, and governing entities. A prior audit, issued in June 2025, found that the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) was not effectively overseeing the development and implementation of the transition to NG911. Auditors also identified weaknesses in technical controls for systems supporting the Street and Address Maintenance program managed by the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS). DHSES and ITS made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report, implementing all three of the initial audit report's recommendations.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Columbia County Arc d.b.a. The Starting Place: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-16)
NYSARC, Inc. Columbia County Chapter d.b.a. The Starting Place (TSP), a not-for-profit special education provider located in Hudson, is authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Preschool Special Class and full-day Preschool Integrated Special Class to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 4 years (referred to as the SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, TSP reported approximately $3.8 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $271,842 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – The Children’s Home of Kingston: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-7)
The Children’s Home of Kingston (CHK), a not-for-profit special education provider located in Kingston, is authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide School-Age Special Class services to children with disabilities ages 8 to 21 years (referred to as the SED cost-based program). For the audit scope, CHK reported approximately $6,289,798 in reimbursable costs for the SED cost-based program. Auditors identified $670,549 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – The Guild for Exceptional Children, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2025-S-35)
The Guild for Exceptional Children, Inc. (GEC) is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide Special Class (over 2.5 hours per day) and Integrated Special Class (over 2.5 hours per day) education services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as the SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, GEC reported approximately $17.2 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $258,712 in reported costs that did not comply with the requirements.

 

###

New York State Division of Human Rights Hearing and Settlement Procedures

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:

NOTICE OF ADOPTION - I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-A Filing No. 876 Filing Date: 2026-09-17 Effective Date: 2026-10-07. 

Action taken: Amendment of sections 465.7, 465.10, 465.11, 465.12, 465.15, 465.16 and 465.17 of Title 9 NYCRR. Statutory authority: Executive Law, section 295(5).

Pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Administrative Procedure Act, notice is hereby given of the following action: 

Subject: Hearing and settlement procedures. 

Purpose: To revise hearing and settlement procedures to reflect current practice and promote equitable efficiency. 

Text or summary was published in the June 17, 2026 issue of the Register, I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-P. 

Final rule as compared with last published rule: 

No changes. Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jeffrey Shalke, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-3977, email: rulemaking@dhr.ny.gov 

Initial Review of Rule: 

As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2031, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted. 

Assessment of Public Comment: 

A Notice of Rule Making was published in the State Register on June 17, 2026. The Division of Human Rights (Division) received one (1) comment associated with the rule making during the public comment period. The comment noted two concerns regarding the proposed amendments, which are summarized below. The Division’s response is provided for each concern. 

Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not create a meaningful discovery dispute resolution process. Litigants are still required to commence a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas or compel disclosure. 

Response: Special proceedings in New York State Supreme Court are not the sole option for enforcing subpoenas or compelling disclosure in a Division action. New York Executive Law §295(7) provides the Division NYS Register/October 7, 2026 Rule Making Activities 13 with the general authority to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, and require the production of documents. More specifically, under 9 NYCRR §465.12(f)(5) and (8), the administrative law judge has the power to call witnesses and direct the production of documents/evidentiary matters at hearing. Additionally, under 9 NYCRR §465.12(f)(1) the administrative law judge has authority to rule upon all motions and objections, including those involving discovery. 

Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not expressly state that Division settlements and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. 

Response: After consideration, the Division determined it is not necessary to expressly state in the amended regulations that Division settlements and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. All orders and awards issued or approved by the Commissioner will continue to conform to precedential case law.

 

New York State's judiciary enjoy the privilege of confidentiality of judicial deliberations by insulating the judiciary the State's Freedom of Information Law

Supreme Court, on remittal of the underlying decision by Court of Appeals to it, granted Plaintiff's petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to compel production, pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), of 22 records at issue that New York State's Office of Court Administration [OCA] had determined were exempt from disclosure because they  consisted of encompass legal guidance on statutory and decisional law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

OCA's Counsel's Office declined to honor FOIL requests involving documents it had sent to judges of New York States Unified Court System (UCS) that encompass legal guidance on statutory and decisional law. In its argument before the Court of Appeals OCA pointed to a memorandum that had become publicly available interpreting the instant Appellate Division's decision in Crawford v Ally, 197 AD3d 27 (the Crawford Memorandum), and OCA had unsuccessfully argued, prior to conducting a search, that all similar memoranda would be categorically privileged, and therefore exempt from FOIL "by virtue of Counsel's Office's in-house relationship with UCS as its organizational client".

On remittal, OCA submitted 22 documents, similar to the Crawford Memorandum, for in camera review. Supreme Court held that they were not privileged and ordered them disclosed.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "On this record OCA has not demonstrated the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Counsel's Office and all UCS judges that would protect the submitted documents. OCA has provided no additional evidence or authority supporting its organizational client theory. Contrary to OCA's contention, the 22 documents alone do not prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship any more than did the Crawford Memorandum, which was before the Court of Appeals when it rejected OCA's privilege claim". In addition, citing Matter of NYCLU, 45 NY3d at 234, the Appellate Division observed that the OCA has not met its burden of demonstrating the privilege applies by reason of an "attorney-client relationship between Counsel's Office and all UCS judges acting in the acting in their deliberative capacities, beyond what was present in the prior record.

The Appellate Division observed that "OCA's policy arguments conflate attorney-client confidentiality with the distinct but equally important confidentiality of judicial deliberations, which flows not from an attorney-client relationship, but from a unique judicial privilege which the legislature recognized by removing the judiciary from FOIL's reach", citing Public Officers Law §§86[1], [c] and Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Empire State Dev. Corp., 98 NY2d 359", nor may OCA may not revive its arguments "relying on FOIL's inter- and intra-agency exemption, which OCA abandoned before the Court of Appeals".

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

Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition filed after the four-month statute of limitations expired dismissed

Plaintiff in this action submitted a motion to Supreme Court seeking to renew his CPLR Article 78 action challenging the City University of New York's [CCNY] decision to terminated Petitioner from his position with CCNY. Supreme Court granted CCNY's cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Article 78 action, rejecting Plaintiff's efforts have CCNY's decision to terminate Plaintiff from his position with CCNY annulled. 

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court decision, which ruling the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. 

The Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff's [1] challenging his termination following an investigation into harassment allegations made against him and [2] challenging CUNY's decision not to interview him for another position with CCNY were time-barred as "Petitioner brought the proceeding well outside the four-month statute of limitations".

The Appellate Division then opined that "Even if the petition were timely, due process claims stemming from his termination are barred by the doctrine of res judicata" as Petitioner had already litigated the merits of such claims in federal court. 

Turning to CCNY's decision not to interview Plaintiff for another position with CCNY in 2022, the Appellate Division found that action by CCNY "was neither arbitrary nor capricious".

Noting that the Court had also considered other arguments advanced by Petitioner, said that it had "found them to be unavailing".

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