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.

Workers' Comp 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

 

Workers' Compensation Board 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues on October 7, 2026. The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its webinar series for employees tomorrow, and there is still time to register! On the dates listed below, the Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present on the basics of the 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 sessions are 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 Wednesday, October 7, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 3, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 1, 2026 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.   More information Visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the Board’s website for additional resources. You can also call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov. Having trouble? If you are having trouble registering for or attending any of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

Selected Education Law §§306 or 310 administrative appeals recently adjudicated by New York State's Commissioner of Education, Dr. Betty A. Rosa

Decision No. 18,844 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of the School District's "District Registrar, Attendance Officer and Director of Food and Nutrition Services". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,845 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of a Member of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,846 - Petitioner sought the removal of a Trustee from the School District's Board of Education. The Petitioner's application was denied as untimely. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown, See 8 NYCRR 275.16. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision.

Decision No. 18,848 - Appeal of Petitioner from certain actions taken by the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,850 - Consolidated Applications submitted by two Petitioners. One Petitioner sought the removal of the Superintendent of the School District and the second Petitioner sought the removal of the School Board's President and Trustee of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the decisions of the Commissioner posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,851 - Appeal of Petitioners on behalf of their children from a decision of the Board of Education concerning the School District's boundary. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases State Government Accountability audits

On October 2, 2026  New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the State Government Accountability, Local government and School audits  audits listed below were posted on the Internet

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

New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services – Actions to Reduce Carbon Emissions From City Government Operations (2023-N-7)
In 2019, the New York City Council passed the Climate Mobilization Act, including Local Law 97, which requires New York City government operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by fiscal year 2025 and 50% by fiscal year 2030, relative to such emissions for fiscal year 2006. Auditors found that the city did not achieve the emissions reductions or energy efficiency improvements for 2025. While the city acknowledged that it was behind schedule due to “unforeseen and unprecedented challenges over the past years,” other factors such as missing documentation, missed reporting deadlines, inconsistent metrics and unclear guidance and communication from the Department of Citywide Administrative Services to agencies it was to collaborate with on emissions reductions also contributed to delays with achieving Climate Mobilization Act goals. 

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Electronic Transmitter Identification Numbers (2024-S-34)
An electronic transmitter identification number (ETIN) is a unique identifier used to submit fee-for-service claims to Medicaid. Per Medicaid policy, all entities that submit claims to Medicaid must have an active, certified ETIN affiliation on file before submitting claims. Auditors found that DOH has not implemented adequate controls to ensure that ETIN affiliations meet requirements. As a result, the Department of Health’s Medicaid claim processing and payment system processed nearly 10.8 million claims submitted with 783 ETINs that were not affiliated with the billing providers on the date of service. The control deficiencies identified reduce visibility into the claim submission process, creating uncertainty about whether claim submitters who may have been previously authorized are still authorized to submit claims.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Selected Aspects of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Small Business Development Program (2023-S-47)
In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched its Small Business Development Program (SBDP) to help eligible small business construction firms develop and grow by establishing business relationships with the MTA. SBDP includes the state-funded Small Business Mentoring Program (Mentoring Program) and the federally funded Small Business Federal Program. Auditors found an overall lack of formal written procedures for many aspects of SBDP, including the application and procurement processes, the identification of bidders and the Mentoring Program’s training and outreach. Auditors found errors or inconsistencies in the documents SBDP uses to select which contractors would be provided with an opportunity to bid on individual contracts. As a result, auditors found eligible contractors that should have been selected to bid but were not.

Division of Criminal Justice Services – Oversight of Adult Probation Services (2023-S-46)
The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) oversees and funds 58 probation departments across the state, covering 57 counties and New York City. It is responsible for promoting practices that improve public safety, hold probationers accountable, and reduce recidivism. Auditors found that DCJS should increase its monitoring and oversight to enhance the probation supervision practices provided by counties and maximize public safety for all state residents and provide guidance that establishes a balance between the counties expressed desire for standards and the need for flexibility from county to county. While DCJS has developed and implemented protocols to assist counties with their supervision responsibilities, auditors found that counties could use additional guidance and support in areas such as training, caseload and review practices, drug and alcohol testing, completing required periodic probationer assessment reports, sex offender supervision and the management of ignition interlock devices.

Department of Labor – Labor Investigations in New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-32)
The Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for enforcing New York Labor Laws (Laws),which provide requirements related to minimum wage, overtime, hours of work, child labor and payment of wages and wage supplements—and DOL’s Division of Labor Standards (Division) is responsible for receiving and investigating labor complaints, and can assess penalties and fines if employers are found to be in violation of the Laws. A prior audit, issued in January 2024, identified weaknesses in several aspects of DOL’s oversight, including significant delays in the Division’s investigation activities that, in turn, diminished the efficiency of case resolution and restitution for workers. DOL made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, two were implemented and five were partially implemented.

City of Albany – Budget Review (Albany County) OSC reviewed the city’s adopted fiscal year 2025 and 2026 budgets and determined that significant revenue and expenditure projections were not reasonable. City officials did not prepare budgets using realistic estimates based on historical trends, actual results and the most current and accurate information available. In addition, city officials relied on non-recurring revenues to finance recurring expenditures. The city experienced an unplanned operating deficit of approximately $25 million in fiscal year 2025, which significantly reduced available financial resources and limited the city’s ability to finance amounts included in the 2026 adopted budget. The 2026 adopted budget includes revenues that the city may not realize and appropriations that are underestimated. If current operating trends continue, auditors project the city will have a fiscal year-end deficit of approximately $26 million.

City of Oneonta – Cybersecurity (Otsego County) City officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard Information Technology (IT) assets from cybersecurity threats. While the city’s third-party IT vendor created several cybersecurity policies, standards and guidelines, the city’s common council did not formally adopt the policies and city officials did not review, enforce or monitor employee compliance with the policies. In addition, officials did not communicate the policies to city employees in a timely manner, and they did not clearly document cybersecurity roles and responsibilities in city employees’ job descriptions. As a result, policy violations occurred, including officials not documenting risk assessment activities and employees not completing cybersecurity awareness training within 30 days of hire.

Lockwood Volunteer Fire Department – Financial Activities (Tioga County)  Department officials did not ensure that financial activities were properly supported, authorized, recorded and reported or provide the department board of directors with complete, accurate and timely information needed to effectively oversee the Department’s financial operations.

Town of Wallkill – Budget Review (Orange County) The town’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2026 risks negatively impacting the town’s financial condition and putting the town in a declining financial position. Because the town did not have complete, accurate and current accounting and financial records, auditors’ ability to determine the reasonableness of the town’s significant revenue and expenditure projections was limited. The budget included appropriated fund balance as well as significant revenue and expenditure projections that were not always reasonable or supported. While the one-time state aid of $4 million will ease concerns for the 2026 fiscal year, the combination of these factors puts the town at risk of having a declining financial condition.

Town of Washington – Financial Operations (Dutchess County) The board and officials did not effectively manage the town’s fund balances. As a result, officials maintained unrestricted fund balance in the main operating funds that exceeded the town’s 25% fund balance policy limit and adopted unrealistic budgets that generated operating surpluses and accumulated excess fund balances. Inadequate budgeting practices, including appropriating fund balance that was not needed to fund operations, may have resulted in taxpayers paying more in real property taxes than necessary. In addition, while officials stated that excess fund balance was set aside for future capital plans and maintenance, they did not develop a multiyear financial plan or a capital plan to identify, prioritize and fund those needs and guide budget development and decisions.

Village of Elmsford – Employee Benefits (Westchester County) Village officials did not ensure employees’ leave accruals and payments of unused leave accruals were accurate, approved and supported. Failing to ensure that employees’ leave accruals and payments are accurate resulted in employees being compensated for or taking leave to which they were not entitled and creates the potential for future errors. As a result, the village incurred unnecessary salary-related expenditures.

Village of Fonda – Water Fund Financial Operations (Montgomery County)  The board did not effectively manage the water fund’s financial operations, causing the fund balance to decline and reducing the board’s ability to respond to emergencies, infrastructure and service needs or other unanticipated occurrences. In addition, the board did not provide oversight of the clerk-treasurer’s water duties.

Village of Lansing – Procurement (Tompkins County) The board and village officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services according to the statutory requirements in state law, the village’s procurement policy or best practices. As a result, village officials did not have assurance that purchases were made in a manner that guards against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, while fostering honest competition for the village to obtain the best goods and services at the lowest possible price.

                                                                            ###