New York State Comptroller issues state and municipal audits 

On June 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the State Government Accountability audits listed below and certain local government audits were released.

                            Click the text highlighted in color to access the text of the audit

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Claims Processing Activity April 1, 2025 Through September 30, 2025 (2025-S-11) During the 6-month period ended September 30, 2025, the Department of Health’s (DOH) claims processing system, eMedNY, processed almost 331 million claims, resulting in payments to providers of nearly $55 billion. Auditors identified over $12.1 million in improper Medicaid payments. As a result of the audit, nearly $3.4 million of the improper payments was recovered. The audit also identified 14 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. In response to the findings, DOH removed 12 providers from the Medicaid program; one of the remaining two providers was referred to the New York State Education Department’s Office of Professions, and the other provider was referred to DOH’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Long Island Rail Road: Mitigation for Extreme Weather Conditions and Flooding (Follow-Up) (2025-F-30) In April 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)-established Blue-Ribbon Commission on Sustainability released its Final Report, which predicted that, without an adequate investment in adaptation measures, climate change would have even greater adverse impacts on the MTA’s vital infrastructure, operations, and revenue streams in the future. The report recommended that the MTA have a climate change adaptation master plan in place by 2015. A prior audit, issued in March 2024, found the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) did not perform a systemwide assessment of its transportation facilities to identify weather-related risks and that LIRR departments either were not in compliance with or did not provide documentation to support compliance with storm operating plans. MTA-LIRR officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s 12 audit recommendations, five were implemented, four were partially implemented, and three were not implemented. 

Empire State Development: Real Property Portfolio (Follow-Up) (2025-F-33) Empire State Development (ESD) invests in infrastructure and innovation, provides early-stage support for new ventures, and strengthens the State’s innovation-based economy through partnerships with universities. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, found ESD did not comply with requirements to publish a report detailing its real property portfolio; as of June 2023, ESD reported it owned 130 properties—of those, 71 (55%) were vacant; and ESD disposed of 10 properties at below-market value between April 2019 and May 2023. While each of the 10 disposals was completed in compliance with requirements, the below-market transfers for seven properties did not include sufficient information about the anticipated economic benefits of the projects compared to the value received and the fair market value of the properties. ESD made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing two recommendations and partially implementing one.

Department of Civil Service – New York State Health Insurance Program: CVS Caremark Payments Made Under the Incorrect Plan (2025-S-19) The Department of Civil Service contracts with CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. (CVS Caremark) to administer the prescription drug program for the Empire Plan, the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program. This program includes the Empire Plan Medicare Rx drug plan for retired members who have Medicare and their dependents, and a Commercial Plan for non-Medicare-qualified members and their dependents. Claims paid under the Medicare Rx Plan are eligible for drug manufacturer discounts and federal subsidies that are not available for claims paid under the Commercial Plan. Accordingly, ensuring that claims are properly paid under the Medicare Rx Plan allows for significant cost avoidance for the State. The audit identified $19.3 million in claims for 338 Medicare-qualified members and their dependents that were incorrectly paid under the Commercial Plan instead of the Medicare Rx Plan.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Clinical Trials (2024-S-22) Clinical trials are research studies that evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical care. New York’s Medicaid program generally does not cover investigational items or services that are the subject of the clinical trial, nor does it cover services provided solely for data collection, but does cover the routine costs of items or services that are necessary for clinical trial participants and are typically covered outside of the trial under the state plan or waiver. In addition to verifying a member’s Medicaid status, a coverage determination must be based on an attestation of the appropriateness of the clinical trial by both the principal investigator and the health care provider responsible for the trial. The audit found that the Department of Health did not always receive an attestation form before members participated in a clinical trial, as required. Additionally, it identified a limited number of improper Medicaid payments for services that were the responsibility of the clinical trial sponsor, investigational services not covered by the member’s managed care organization, or services that lacked supporting prior authorization.

Village of Whitehall – Records and Reports (Washington County) The clerk treasurer did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records, provide the board of trustees with monthly financial reports, or file the fiscal year 2024-25 annual financial report (AFR) with DiNapoli’s office, as required by state law.

Town of Lewis – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Lewis County) Only two board members audited the supervisor’s fiscal year 2024 financial records and reports, not the entire board as required. Furthermore, the board members did not maintain supporting documentation for the audit work performed or identify cash receipts and payroll issues. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the 2022 through 2024 AFRs with the State Comptroller’s office, as required by state law.

Town of Union – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Broome County) The board did not provide for a timely annual audit of the town’s financial records for fiscal year 2024. The town comptroller did not prepare and file the 2024 AFR with DiNapoli’s office, as required by state law. The town comptroller also did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports.

Town of Schuyler Falls – Host Fee Payments (Clinton County) The town did not receive accurate landfill host fee payments. As a result, the town did not have access to funds that could have been used for its operations or to potentially reduce the financial burden on town taxpayers. Officials contacted the corporation to discuss the accuracy of the host fee payments previously made to the town. The corporation subsequently agreed to pay the town the outstanding host fees and interest totaling $370,651, consisting of $329,588 for the outstanding host fees and $41,063 for interest.

Theresa Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Jefferson County) The review examined Theresa Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in a prior audit, Theresa Fire District – Board Oversight and Financial Management (2021M-60), released in June 2021. The audit determined the board did not provide adequate oversight to ensure that financial activities were properly recorded and reported and did not properly manage fund balance. Of the audit’s 13 recommendations, district officials fully implemented one recommendation, partially implemented five, and did not implement seven. Until all recommendations are implemented, the board cannot ensure district assets are fully safeguarded.

Fine Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (St. Lawerence County) The review looked at Fine Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in a prior audit, Fine Fire District – Board Oversight (2023M-81), released in October 2023. The audit determined the board did not adequately monitor financial activities or maintain appropriate records and reports. Of the audit’s 21 recommendations, the board did not implement 20, and one recommendation was no longer applicable. The commissioners did not provide reasonable explanations for why the board did not implement the recommendations. Additionally, the commissioners demonstrated an unwillingness to exercise the board’s oversight responsibilities by taking no action in the more than two years since the prior audit was issued.

Town of Tompkins Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Delaware County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Town of Tompkins Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in a prior audit, Town of Tompkins Fire District – Board Oversight (2023M-33), released in June 2023. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial activities. Of the 12 audit recommendations, district officials fully implemented two recommendations, partially implemented two recommendations, did not implement seven recommendations and one is not applicable.

###

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending June 26, 2026

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 

Redefining Government Efficiency This report examines how the concept of government efficiency is evolving and offers examples of what these trends look like in practice. DOWNLOAD

New York Health Policy Monitor (June 23, 2026) The New York State Legislature advances measures extending state university hospital procurement flexibilities, while state regulators propose reduced nurse aide training standards. 

Future-Proof Your Workforce With Cross-Skilling As emerging technologies reshape government operations, agencies are turning to cross-skilling to build a more adaptable workforce and close critical talent gaps. READ

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

AI and the Future of Digital Permitting Artificial intelligence can optimize many phases of permitting and inspections while preserving and enhancing human judgement that serves constituents. This paper explores how AI-driven permitting systems can improve resident experience and reduce staff workloads. DOWNLOAD

Protect Public Funds From Emerging Fraud Threats Expense fraud is becoming harder for finance teams to catch. AI-generated fraud tactics are creating new oversight gaps across state and local agencies. This eBook explores how organizations can identify emerging fraud tactics earlier, strengthen policy enforcement, and use automation and analytics to flag suspicious activity. DOWNLOAD

How AI Is Changing Network Requirements This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

A practical path to scaling AI across government Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Think Like a Fraudster, Adapt Like an Expert This handbook gives government leaders insights into the fraudster's mindset so they can create strategies to proactively prevent fraud and adapt to evolving tactics. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

New York Health Policy Monitor (June 23, 2026) The New York State Legislature advances measures extending state university hospital procurement flexibilities, while state regulators propose reduced nurse aide training standards.

In responding to a Freedom of Information Law request, if the custodian of the information has the ability to retrieve the record or data with reasonable effort, it is required to do so

Plaintiff' in this action submitted five requests pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law* [FOIL] to Respondent [State College] seeking several categories of documents including email correspondence between certain employees over specified date ranges and, or, containing references to Plaintiff. 

The State College's records access officer [RAO]  produced one category of responsive records but, for all remaining categories except Category 2 of FOIL request No. 3 and Category 2 of FOIL request No. 4, the RAO advised Plaintiff that review, redaction and production of responsive records would take several months and would be released on a rolling basis. Plaintiff contended that the extended time frames for those requests were unreasonable and pursued administrative appeals.

The FOIL Appeals Unit [FAU] of Respondent State University of New York [SUNY] rejected Plaintiff's claim that the extensions Respondents granted themselves to produce responsive records were unreasonable and thus were constructive denials of the requests. The FAU also sustained the RAO's two actual denials, contending the relevant requests were "very broad and without subject matter limitation, [and] therefore responsive records could not be located with reasonable effort."

Plaintiff next commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding to, among other things, compel production of the requested categories of documents and recover counsel fees. Respondents moved, pre-answer, to dismiss the petition, which Plaintiff opposed. 

Supreme Court granted the Respondents' motion, dismissed the petition and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel fees.  Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

As an initial matter, the Appellate Division addressed Plaintiff's challenges to the reasonableness of Respondents' various extensions of time and held them either moot by Respondents' disclosure of the requested documents or not properly before the Court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

As to the two actual denials, Plaintiff argued, and Respondents concede, that the petition was improperly dismissed on the ground that the relevant categories of documents were not reasonably described. The Appellate Division said it agreed Plaintiff with respect to these two categories of sought consisting of emails exchanged between two identified College employees over specified date ranges, satisfied Plaintiff's "initial burden under Public Officers Law §89(3) (a) to reasonably describe the records sought so that [Respondents] can locate them", citing Matter of Wagner v New York City Dept. of Educ., 45 NY3d 93, and other New York State Court decisions.

With respect Respondents' administrative denials based on the related, but separate, consideration as to whether it would be unduly burdensome for Respondents to comply with Plaintiff's request, the Appellate Division noted that  "When an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so", citing Public Officers Law §89[3][a]). 

The Appellate Division then observed that what constitutes reasonable effort is necessarily "a case-specific determination", noting that the motion papers are insufficient to resolve that issue and Respondents must be accorded an opportunity to answer the petition with evidence satisfying their burden "to demonstrate that [they] cannot retrieve the requested documents with reasonable effort".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the part of the Plaintiff's petition challenging nondisclosure of Category 2 of FOIL request No. 3, and Category 2 of FOIL request No. 4, must be reinstated and because that part of the petition remains undetermined, Supreme Court's denial of counsel fees is premature. The Appellate Division then ruled that "the judgment is modified, without costs, by reversing so much thereof denied to that extent; and, as so modified", affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

* Public Officers Law Article 6

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

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli and New York State Attorney General James announced the takedown of a $9 Million fraud scheme in New York City

On June 24, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the indictment and arrest of Maksim Grinberg, 53, of New York City for an alleged years-long fraud scheme that stole over $9 million from Medicaid. Grinberg and his eight companies, which operate under the name EyePic, were charged with 15 crimes for operating eye care clinics throughout New York City that falsely charged Medicaid for eye surgeries that never happened."

An investigation by the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC) and the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) found that Grinberg used credentials from ophthalmologists that were previously affiliated with his businesses to submit false claims for eye surgery procedures, fraudulently collecting millions of dollars in payments from managed care organizations funded by New York’s Medicaid program. Grinberg allegedly spent the stolen funds on expensive purchases such as a mansion in New Jersey, jewelry, international travel, and luxury cars including an Audi, a Bentley, a Porsche, and a Lamborghini. 

Despite being caught once before, Grinberg allegedly brazenly tried to cheat the healthcare system again out of millions of dollars meant for those in need," said State Comptroller DiNapoli. “Rooting out Medicaid fraud is a top priority of mine, and I will continue my partnership with Attorney General James to eliminate any such attempts. My thanks to Attorney General James for her partnership to hold Grinberg accountable.”

“Scammers who steal from Medicaid are corrupting our health care system and taking funds meant to support our state’s most vulnerable residents,” said Attorney General James. “Our investigation shut down a shameless scheme that stole millions of dollars from taxpayers and took advantage of doctors without their knowledge. We will not tolerate Medicaid fraud in New York, and I am grateful to Comptroller DiNapoli for his partnership.”

While Grinberg is not a medical professional of any kind, he allegedly set up eye care clinics in Manhattan and Brooklyn in the names of doctors to bill Medicaid for fake procedures. From January 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025, Grinberg submitted thousands of claims falsely stating that four doctors performed surgeries to remove scars on patients’ eyelid linings due to infection. However, the businesses Grinberg ran were merely optical shops for fitting eyeglasses and the surgeries he billed for never occurred. Grinberg allegedly instructed his staff to use the doctors’ credentials to bill three managed care organizations operated by New York’s Medicaid program, Fidelis Care New York (Fidelis), Healthfirst PHSP (Healthfirst), and Molina Healthcare of New York (Molina). The false claims for these fake surgeries allowed him to steal more than $9 million from Medicaid.

Grinberg allegedly used the stolen Medicaid funds to pay restitution owed from a 2017 bank fraud conviction prosecuted by the Brooklyn District Attorney and to fund his lavish lifestyle. His expenses allegedly included gambling, expensive jewelry, fine dining, caviar, high-end fashion, international and domestic travel, and private school tuition for family members. Grinberg also spent the stolen funds on rent for a penthouse apartment in Battery Park City, mortgage payments for a six-bedroom mansion with a swimming pool and three-car garage in New Jersey, and luxury cars, including an Audi, a Bentley, a Porsche, and a Lamborghini. 

Grinberg’s businesses under his EyePic brand that were indicted include:

• Family Eye Care Ophthalmology, P.C.; 9th Street Vision Care, Inc., and Parkslope Eye Care, Inc., which all operated out of the same address at 334 9th^thStreet in Brooklyn
• Flatbush Eye Care, Inc. at 1054 Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn
• Graham Eye Care, LLC at 102 Graham Avenue in Brooklyn
• Harlem Eye Care, Inc. at 2249 2nd Avenue in Manhattan
• MGBK Management, LLC at 326 9th Street in Brooklyn 

Grinberg was arraigned before Judge Danny Chun of Kings County Supreme Court. Grinberg and his businesses are charged with 15 crimes, including Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Health Care Fraud in the First Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. If convicted on the top count, Grinberg faces a maximum sentence of eight and a third to 25 years in prison.

Nota Bene: These charges are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The MFCU’s investigation was led by Detectives Mohammad Rahman and Gregory Nealon who were assisted by Detectives Aleksandr Lipkin, Daryl Sims, and Senior Detective Larry Williams, under the supervision of Detective Supervisor James Briscoe and Deputy Chief Ronald Lynch. The audit investigation was conducted by Senior Auditor Investigator Michael Di Mascio with the assistance of Auditor Investigator Andrea Lombeyda and Principal Auditor Investigator Kizzy-Ann Waldropt, under the supervision of Regional Chief Auditor Jonathan Romano. Data Analysis was performed by Senior Research Analyst Elise Roche, under the supervision of Chief Auditor Dejan Budimir.

The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant Attorneys General Yuri Zanow and Michael Hendrick, under the supervision of New York City Regional Director Twan Bounds. Investigative support was provided by Legal Support Analysts Bethany Beru, Tara Shukla, and Julia Guercio, under the supervision of Supervising Legal Assistant Alexandra Schmit.

MFCU is led by Deputy Attorney General Amy Held and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Thomas O’Hanlon. MFCU is part of the Division for Criminal Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General José Maldonado and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

New York MFCU’s total funding for federal fiscal year (FY) 2026 is $70,793,651. Of that total, 75 percent, or $53,095,240, is awarded under a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The remaining 25 percent, totaling $17,698,411 for FY 2026, is funded by New York State. New York MFCU has recovered $627,812,108 for the Medicaid program through its criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions from federal fiscal years 2019 through 2025. 

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Disabled police officer placed on restricted duty because of a disability claimed unlawful discrimination as a result of his loss of opportunities to earn overtime pay

Plaintiff, a former New York Police Department [NYPD] detective, alleged he suffered unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the City of New York's Human Rights Law [HRL] as the result of his being placed on restricted duty because of his disability. 

Plaintiff contended that he was deprived of opportunities to receive overtime pay at a rate equal to his similarly situated colleagues who did not have a disability. The Appellate Division said that "Supreme Court properly found that [Plaintiff] failed to state a cause of action for discrimination under the City's HRL, citing Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582. 

Further, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff "provided no support for his allegation that the NYPD had a policy that prevented him from receiving overtime opportunities because of his disability".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "it cannot be inferred from the overtime hours given to [Plaintiff's] colleagues that [NYPD] discriminated against [Plaintiff] based on his disability

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