An appeal of a school board's decision submitted to the Commissioner of Education dismissed because it had not been properly served on the school board

New York State Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa dismissed an appeal challenging a School Board's [Board] decision denying the parent's [Petitioners] request for afterschool transportation for the Petitioners' two children because the appeal had not been properly served. 

The Commissioner found that the Petitioners' appeal had not personally served on the Board but was "sent via certified mail with return receipt requested".  This, said the Commissioner, "is not a method of service authorized by 8 NYCRR 275.8 (a)". 

The Commissioner explained that Section 275.8 (a) of the Commissioner’s regulations "requires that the petition be personally served upon each named respondent". Further, the Commissioner observed that "If a school district is named as a respondent, service upon the school district shall be made personally by delivering a copy of the petition to the district clerk, to any trustee or any member of the board of education, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person in the office of the superintendent who has been designated by the board of education to accept service (8 NYCRR 275.8 [a]".

Noting that the petition was not personally served on the Board but was sent via "certified mail with return receipt requested", the Commissioner dismissed the parents' appeal for lack of proper service.

Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller posts municipal and school audits on the Internet

On January 5, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click on the text in color to access the audit.

School Districts - Lead In Water: Testing and Reporting (Statewide)

Auditors assessed whether the officials at 21 school districts that had 26,099 enrolled students for the 2023-24 school year properly identified, reported or implemented needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. For these 21 districts, auditors determined that none sampled and tested or exempted all required potable water outlets for lead contamination, only one developed and maintained a complete sampling plan, only one had a complete remedial action plan in place, and just one reported testing results to all required parties within the required timeframes. Of the 6,431 water outlets identified, 1,867 were either not sampled for testing or properly exempted by officials, and 418 could not be matched to a district test result because records were not available and district officials were not certain whether appropriate remediation was completed. These water outlets were not properly secured against use during auditors’ fieldwork.

Delaware County Industrial Development Agency (DCIDA) – Project Monitoring and Website Transparency

DCIDA officials did not properly monitor projects and maintain a transparent website. Although officials told auditors that the executive director made field visits to project sites to monitor their progress, auditors recommended DCIDA officials improve their monitoring efforts over job performance, sales and use tax exemptions, mortgage recording tax exemptions and capital investments. DCIDA officials did not verify whether project owners met agreed-upon job creation and retention goals or track cumulative sales and use tax exemptions. Officials did not obtain affidavits or other available documentation to substantiate the amount of mortgage taxes abated or verify the actual amounts invested by project owners. Instead, the board discussed the projects on an ongoing basis and relied on the good faith of the project owners to accurately report benefits and comply with project agreements.

Steuben County – Information Technology (IT)

County officials did not limit and monitor access to and properly safeguard computerized data used by employees in the finance and personnel departments and county clerk’s office. Specifically, county officials did not inventory and classify computerized data, including private or sensitive information, or ensure the security of county-owned data in the custody of third-party service providers. Officials also did not update and test IT contingency planning and backup procedures or provide periodic information security awareness training, and ensure network user accounts were properly managed.

West Henrietta Fire Department, Inc. – Treasurer (Monroe County)

The treasurer did not properly deposit, disburse, record and report department funds. The treasurer did not deposit revenues in a department bank account within 10 days of receipt or have supporting documentation for all deposited revenues totaling $225,198. Deposits had incorrect dates, descriptions or amounts and disbursements had incorrect vendor names, check numbers or payment methods. Also, the treasurer did not obtain board approval for 24 disbursements totaling $113,194 or 109 disbursements totaling $42,911.

Genesee Valley Fire Department, Inc. – Treasurer (Monroe County)

The treasurers did not properly deposit, disburse, record and report department funds. As a result, the board lacked reliable information that was needed to manage the department’s financial activities or determine whether all disbursements were for appropriate purposes. The treasurers did not maintain adequate supporting documentation, such as deposit slips or issue required or obtain any board or membership approval disbursements before the disbursements were paid. The treasurers also did not submit written financial reports to the board or prepare bank reconciliations.

Valley Stream Central High School District – Capital Assets (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly monitor, account for and dispose of capital assets. While the board adopted some policies for monitoring and disposing of capital assets, officials did not ensure the procedures were followed, which led to missing and inaccurate information in the district’s inventory system, assets that could not be located and assets not being properly disposed of.

Great Neck Park District – Capital Assets (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly record and account for all the district’s capital assets. While the finance director and senior accountant shared the responsibilities of the property control manager, the board did not officially appoint one person to serve in that capacity who would be responsible for tracking the district’s capital assets, ensuring the accuracy of asset records and establishing detailed procedures for protecting capital assets. Additionally, the board did not adopt a comprehensive capital asset policy to ensure officials properly recorded and accounted for equipment.

Town of Edinburg – Town Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Saratoga County)

The former supervisor, who resigned in October 2024, did not maintain a central accounting system to track the town’s financial activity, which caused accounting records and reports to be incomplete, inaccurate and outdated. The former supervisor also did not prepare monthly bank reconciliations or maintain check registers with running cash balances for the town’s checking accounts. In January 2025, the town hired a bookkeeper and the current supervisor began working with her to set up a new accounting system and reconstruct the prior years’ accounting records.

Village of Weedsport – Financial Management (Cayuga County)

The board did not effectively manage the village’s fund balance and levied more real property taxes than necessary to fund operations. The board also maintained unrestricted fund balance in the general and sewer funds totaling $696,548 and $336,015, respectively, at the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year. This unrestricted fund balance was sufficient to fund the upcoming fiscal year’s budget appropriations for the general fund by almost half and for the sewer fund almost in full. In addition, officials were unable to demonstrate whether all reserve funding was reasonable or would be sufficient for future needs.

Village of Manlius – Financial Reports (Onondaga County)

The board did not ensure monthly and annual financial reports (AFR) were prepared and provided to board members. As a result, the board lacked the information necessary to adequately monitor financial operations, make informed financial and strategic decisions, assess the village’s financial standing at year-end and did not ensure the village filed an AFR in accordance with state law. The lack of financial reports and AFR filings also impacted the board’s transparency with taxpayers and residents.

County of Oneida – County Clerk

Although the clerk’s staff collected and deposited funds in a timely manner, the clerk did not always remit funds to the commissioner in a timely or accurate manner. Remittances to the commissioner for non-mortgage fees totaling approximately $2.7 million averaged 69 days late from January 2024 through March 2025. The clerk also did not ensure monthly accountability analyses were prepared to reconcile liabilities against available cash throughout the audit period. Had the clerk done so, he may have identified the following errors in recording and remitting funds soon after they occurred: 2,387 federal tax lien filing fees totaling over $95,000 (dating back to 2007) were not remitted to the commissioner,  approximately $94,000 in revenues generated from website subscriptions were overpaid to the commissioner, and as of March 31, 2025, cash exceeded known liabilities by $108,138.

Town of Hornellsville – Distribution of Foreign Fire Insurance (FFI) Tax Proceeds (Steuben County)

Town officials did not properly distribute the 2023 and 2024 FFI tax proceeds in accordance with insurance law and relevant case law because the bookkeeper miscalculated the allocation of FFI tax proceeds. The board did not receive or review the bookkeeper’s allocation calculation to ensure the FFI tax proceeds were accurately and properly distributed to the two fire companies. As a result, the fire district received $2,569 more than it should have received and the fire company and fire department received $2,444 and $125 less than their pro-rata share of the FFI tax proceeds sent to the town.

###

Where the language of a release entered into in the course of litigation is clear and unambiguous, the signing is a "jural act" binding on the parties

In 2021, Plaintiff commenced two false-arrest actions against the City of New York [City], each stemming from separate arrests 2020. Plaintiff and City eventually settled the second of these actions by the parties signing a "release" freeing City from "any and all state and federal tort claims ... [Plaintiff] had, now has, or hereafter can, shall, or may have ... upon or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever that occurred through the date of this RELEASE, except as indicated below, if applicable." 

Plaintiff signed the document without excluding any claims, and his attorney notarized his signature.

Plaintiff subsequently attempted to litigate the first alleged false-arrest action against City [the instant litigation]. Supreme Court, however, refused to enforce the release earlier executed by Plaintiff with respect to the first false-arrest action over City's objection based on the Supreme Court's conclusion that the parties intended to settle only the second false-arrest action. 

City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling and the Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's decision, two Justices dissenting.

The Court of Appeals sustained the Appellate Division's ruling, explaining City had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to litigation involving the first false allegation based on the clear language of the release Plaintiff had earlier signed and Plaintiff failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition.

The Court of Appeals explained that "the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the clear language of the release, and [Plaintiff] failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition". 

The Court of Appeals' decision, in a footnote, noted that Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel,* could have excluded the first alleged false arrest cause of action from the release by the simple act of listing it in the space provided for that purpose, Plaintiff signed the release without doing so. 

This signing, said the Court was "an objective manifestation of assent that is binding upon [Plaintiff] notwithstanding any unilateral mistake or subsequent regret on his part."

Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.

* Because Plaintiff was represented by the same attorney in both his false-arrest actions, the Court of Appeals, in a footnote, indicated that it had "no occasion to opine on whether a similar result would obtain had [Plaintiff] been represented by different counsel in each action when he executed the release".

Selected items posted on Internet blogs the week ending January 2, 2026

Autonomous Tech: Building Resilient Public Services Learn how state/local agencies can adopt autonomous technologies while preserving governance, equity, and trust. READ MORE 

CIO Essentials: Vital Priorities for a Transforming Landscape This paper discusses the four core priorities CIOs must focus on to meet this moment: modernizing legacy systems, advancing data and AI maturity, leading enterprise security and driving operational efficiency. DOWNLOAD 

How Smart Police Stations Are Redefining Public Service Self-service kiosks are helping law enforcement agencies deliver faster, clearer service by digitizing high-impact workflows and reducing front-desk demands. READ NOW 

Navigating H.R. 1: A Medicaid Checklist for Government Agencies New Medicaid work and reporting requirements are fast approaching. This checklist helps state agencies assess how prepared they are to verify employment, education, and life changes without creating administrative gridlock. DOWNLOAD

Chart a Smarter, Secure Path for AI in Higher Ed Discover practical steps to implement AI responsibly to help improve student services and drive operational efficiency. Download the Guide

"City & State New York" designates New York State Upstate Power Leaders of 2025 making an impact north of Westchester County

Click the URL posted below in Red to access the names and a brief bio of these Leaders. 

The 2025 Upstate Power 100 - City & State New York

City & State New York identifies itself as the premier media organization dedicated to covering New York’s local and state politics and policy providing non-partisan coverage to its readers.