On July 29, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that the following State Government Accountability audits were released.

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

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Medicaid Payments to Hospitals for Outpatient Services Billed as Inpatient Services for Recipients Enrolled in Managed Care (Follow-Up) (2026-F-1) When managed care enrollees receive care at hospitals, managed care organizations (MCOs) reimburse the hospitals, and a recipient’s hospital status—inpatient versus outpatient—affects Medicaid’s reimbursement. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, examined whether Medicaid made improper payments to hospitals for outpatient services billed as inpatient services for recipients enrolled in managed care with a focus on inpatient claims with patient stays of less than 24 hours (“short-stays”). The audit found that the Department of Health (DOH) did not review short-stay inpatient encounters or provide guidance to MCOs and hospitals on how to determine whether a short-stay claim should be billed as inpatient or outpatient. DOH officials made little progress in addressing the problems identified in the original audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented and three were not. implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Payments for Laboratory and Related Services (2023-S-51) The Department of Health (DOH) and managed care organizations (MCOs) can set limits on laboratory procedures, such as daily, weekly, yearly or per lifetime. These limits are enforced in MCOs’ claim processing systems and in eMedNY (the Medicaid claim processing and payment system) through system edits but can be exceeded for medical necessity. For the period from June 2019 through January 2025, auditors found $21.6 million in payments due to DOH not providing adequate guidance to providers and MCOs and not effectively monitoring claims for certain laboratory procedures, as well as weaknesses in the eMedNY system edits.

Office for People With Developmental Disabilities – Incentives for Non-Profit Service Providers’ Recruiting and Retention Efforts (2023-S-44) The Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) coordinates services for individuals directly through its 13 Developmental Disabilities Services Offices, and through a network of over 500 non-profit service providers (Providers). To address significant staff shortages that caused many Providers to close programs or reduce operations, OPWDD issued bonuses and supplemental one-time payments to help Providers retain and recruit direct support professionals, utilizing federal funding through the American Rescue Plan Act and enacting State budget cost‑of‑living adjustments. Auditors identified certain weaknesses in OPWDD’s oversight of various incentive payments, which resulted in inconsistent distribution of these payments to direct support professionals, potentially working counter to the bonus and incentive programs’ intention to retain and recruit this critical workforce sector.

Department of Motor Vehicles – Assessable Expenses of Administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act for the State Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2025 (2025-M-3) The Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act help ensure that the operators of motor vehicles driven in New York State possess adequate insurance coverage, or are financially secure, to compensate those persons they might injure or whose property they might damage as a result of an accident. The Department of Motor Vehicles is responsible for tracking the expenses of administering the acts and assessing these expenses on insurance carriers that issue policies or contracts of automotive bodily injury insurance. Auditors found that the expenses for administering the acts for the State Fiscal Year ended March 31, 2025 totaled $32.4 million.

Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Performing Arts Center Corporation – Security Over Critical Systems (2025-S-37) The Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Performing Arts Center Corporation operates the performing arts center housed within The Egg, which is part of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza complex in Albany. The Egg utilizes 11 systems to support its network and operations. The Egg is subject to New York State Office of Information Technology Services policies and standards under Executive Order 117. To process credit cards, The Egg must follow the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. Auditors identified areas where The Egg could improve security controls to minimize risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data and communicated the details of these findings in a confidential report to Egg officials.

###

Applicant challenged the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's rejection of her religious exemption request finding that Applicant was disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits

The text of the Appellate Division's ruling sustaining the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in the instant matter is set out below:

In the Matter of the Claim of Roxalana T. Jordan, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided and Entered: July 9, 2026

CV-24-0840

Calendar Date: May 27, 2026

Before: Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher And Mcshan, JJ.

Roxalana T. Jordan, Brooklyn, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Dennis A. Rambaud of counsel), for respondent.

Aarons, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 12, 2023, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good  cause.

In September 2021, claimant was notified by her employer, the Unified Court System, that all judges and nonjudicial personnel were required to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine by September 27, 2021 in order to continue employment, unless otherwise approved for an exemption due to a medical reason or sincerely held religious belief. Claimant submitted a written religious exemption request seeking to be exempt from the vaccination requirement, which request the employer denied. Claimant thereafter submitted a medical exemption request, which request was also denied. In addition, claimant submitted an amended religious exemption request, which was not considered by the employer. Claimant's employment was ultimately terminated for failure to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine, prompting her to apply for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Department of Labor, as is relevant here, issued an initial determination finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Following various hearings, an Administrative Law Judge sustained that determination, and that decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in a decision filed October 12, 2023. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment, and whether their conduct is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, are factual issues for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Gardner [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1464, 1465-1466 [3d Dept 2025] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Palmieri [Commissioner of Labor], 243 AD3d 970, 971-972 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Salloum [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1394, 1396 [3d Dept 2025]; see also Frazee v Illinois Dept. of Employment Sec., 489 US 829, 833 [1989]). In her initial written religious exemption request, claimant stated, "In God We Trust. My religious beliefs and practices do[ ] not require or mandate or force[ ] the use of legal or illegal drugs." At the hearing, claimant explained that her religion — one she declined to disclose — believes in "self-autonomy of the body" and not being forced to take illegal or legal drugs. Claimant acknowledged, however, that her religion does not prohibit her from being vaccinated but, rather, it is her choice whether to be vaccinated. Claimant further testified that she amended her religious exemption request once her initial request was denied, asserting a generalized concern about the content of the vaccine. No further information about her religious beliefs or tenets of her undisclosed religion was provided.

Regarding her request for a medical exemption, claimant failed to provide any requisite documentation from any medical health professional, asserting only that the COVID-19 vaccine is contraindicated and ill-advised based upon "recent conversations with [her] medical professionals" given her "current heath condition and status" — a medical condition she deemed unnecessary to disclose. Given the vague and generalized information in support of her religious and medical exemption requests, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessments, the record supports the Board's findings that claimant did not establish that her refusal to comply with the employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief but, rather, was based on personal and secular reasons (see Matter of Tandian [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1105, 1106-1107 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 910 [2026]; Matter of Gardner [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d at 1466; Matter of Ocasio [City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.-Commissioner of Labor], 237 AD3d 1412, 1415-1416 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 906 [2025]) and, further, that there was insufficient medical information to assess the basis or validity for the requested medical exemption (see Matter of Smith [Roswell Park Cancer Inst. Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 227 AD3d 1344, 1346-1347 [3d Dept 2024]). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see Matter of Des Abbayes [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1199, 1200-1201 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Cosma [Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Ctr.-Commissioner of Labor], 236 AD3d 1121, 1123-1124 [3d Dept 2025]). Claimant's remaining contentions are either not properly raised in this proceeding or are without merit.

Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

On July 27, 2026 New York State Comptroller posted the New York State municipal and school audits listed below on the Internet

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

Lake Mohegan Fire District – Procurement (Westchester County) The board and district officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services in accordance with state law, the district’s procurement policy or best practices. As a result, the board, district officials and taxpayers lack assurance that procurements were made in a manner that promoted competition, transparent, free from favoritism and an economical use of public funds.

Town of Cato – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Cayuga County) Although the clerk and former clerk generally recorded and reported collections accurately and in a timely manner for the period reviewed, the former clerk did not deposit and remit all collections within the timeframes prescribed in town law. This resulted in a lack of compliance and increased the risk that collections could be lost, unaccounted for or misappropriated without detection.

Auburn Enlarged City School District – Building Access (Cayuga County)  Auditors found that district officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices (badges). Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

Hannibal Fire Company – Kartway Fundraising Activities (Oswego County)  The board and company officials did not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in state law when they engaged in a non-permissible fundraising activity known as Kartway, a go-kart racetrack that operated on company property. In addition, the board did not provide oversight or otherwise monitor Kartway’s activities. Instead, the board relied on an unincorporated “association” to handle all racetrack operations and cash collections and did not require the association to provide any financial reports. The former chief was arrested in connection with stealing from the company. He pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $9,838 in restitution.

Town of Amherst – Employee Benefits (Erie County) Town officials did not ensure employees received leave time benefits, stipends and separation payments consistent with collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and town policies. As a result, the town provided additional benefits and paid compensation to employees which were not provided for in the applicable CBAs, authorized by the board or supported by sufficient documentation.

Town of Amherst – Information Technology (Erie County) Town officials did not properly secure user account access to the network. As a result, the town was exposed to an increased chance of unauthorized network access which could cause a variety of disruptions to the town, ranging from minor operational disruptions to network outages or data breaches.

Crystal Beach Fire Department – Foreign Fire Insurance (FFI) Tax Proceeds Accountability (Ontario County) The treasurer did not provide adequate oversight of FFI tax proceeds. The treasurer did not maintain separate, complete and accurate records of FFI tax proceeds received and expended, establish a formal process for approving expenditures prior to payment or file the required annual FFI tax proceeds report with our office. In addition, the department’s bylaws lacked clear guidance for the receipt, recording, use and reporting of FFI tax proceeds.

Village of Richburg – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Allegany County) The board did not conduct or provide for an audit of the clerk-treasurer’s records and reports for fiscal year 2023 in accordance with state law. The clerk-treasurer also did not file the results of the village’s fiscal activities to the State Comptroller’s office for the 2019 through 2023 fiscal years, as required by state law.

Cuddebackville Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Orange County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Cuddebackville Fire District’s progress in implementing our recommendations in a prior audit, Cuddebackville Fire District – Board Oversight (2024M-94), released in February 2025. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations or properly audit claims. Of the 13 audit recommendations, district officials fully implemented six  recommendations, partially implemented five and did not implement two. While officials made progress in addressing many of the report’s findings, the board cannot ensure district assets are fully safeguarded until all recommendations are implemented.

###

Press Release - GOVERNOR HOCHUL ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS DISENROLLED FROM HOWARD UNIVERSITY TO EARN THEIR DEGREE AT SUNY AND CUNY

Impacted New York Resident Students Eligible For Expedited Late Admissions Review for Fall 2026 at Participating SUNY and CUNY Campuses

 

SUNY and CUNY Campuses To Provide $800 Credit To Offset Non-Refundable Howard University Enrollment Deposits

 

 

On July 27, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul announced that New York State is prepared to help students impacted by Howard University’s recent decision to disenroll more than 500 admitted students ahead of Fall 2026 classes beginning later this summer. Governor Hochul has directed the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) to work to ensure that every impacted New York resident student will have the opportunity to seek admission to participating SUNY or CUNY institutions for the Fall 2026 semester. Additionally, all impacted students will receive expedited late admissions review at participating campuses with available capacity.

 

“Hundreds of students, including New Yorkers, are scrambling and scared since they’ve been disenrolled from their intended college just a few weeks before classes are set to begin,” Governor Hochul said. “New York is home to the nation’s finest systems of public higher education, and we are ready to welcome these talented students with the opportunity they deserve. To every student who is worried that their educational future has been disrupted: New York is ready to support and empower you.”

 

Under Governor Hochul’s plan, participating SUNY and CUNY campuses will use existing capacity in their Fall 2026 entering classes, ensuring that this initiative will not reduce opportunities for other New York students seeking admission. Potential participating SUNY campuses that will provide expedited admissions review include the State University of New York at Albany, the State University of New York at Binghamton, the State University of New York at Buffalo, the State University of New York at Stony Brook, SUNY Buffalo State University, SUNY New Paltz, and SUNY Oneonta, with additional campuses reviewing available capacity.

 

State University of New York Chancellor John B. King Jr. said, “There is a place at SUNY for every New Yorker, and we want to empower all students with access to the affordable, excellent public higher education they deserve. We thank Governor Hochul for her leadership and vision to support students who recently were disenrolled elsewhere and ensure they are able to pursue their academic goals at SUNY campuses.”

 

The SUNY Board of Trustees said, “Uplifting students and empowering them to reach their full potential with an affordable, excellent public higher education is foundational to the SUNY System. Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, SUNY will be able to support students who were disenrolled from the school they planned to attend, and will ensure they are able to continue their academic journeys without interruption.”

 

City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez said, “CUNY’s mission is to expand access to higher education for all students, not restrict it based on financial means. To these students currently facing uncertainty and left in academic limbo: our doors are open, our admissions are expedited, and your dream of a college degree remains well within reach. We are grateful to Governor Hochul for her vision and swift action to help these displaced students find a home in our public university system.”

 

CUNY Board of Trustees Chairperson William C. Thompson Jr. said, “The Board of Trustees is dedicated to ensuring CUNY is responsive whenever New Yorkers face unexpected hurdles. Thanks to Governor Hochul’s decisive leadership, we have moved quickly to work with these students to provide the stability, academic excellence, and the immediate support they need.”

 

Assemblymember Alicia Hyndman said, "It is unfortunate that several students planning to attend Howard University were disenrolled last week," said Assemblywoman Alicia L. Hyndman, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. "To help impacted New York residents, the State is guaranteeing admission to participating SUNY or CUNY campuses. The state is also willing to help other scholars nationwide who are eligible for expedited late admission review for the fall semester at campuses with available capacity. With soaring financial costs, pursuing higher education is already hard. Let’s help make it easier for those who want to better themselves and pursue their dreams.”

 

Impacted students and families seeking additional information about eligibility, participating campuses and the admissions process are encouraged to visit SUNY at www.suny.edu/howard or CUNY at https://www.cuny.edu/admissions/undergraduate/.

 

About the State University of New York

The State University of New York is the largest comprehensive system of higher education in the United States, and more than 95 percent of all New Yorkers live within 30 miles of any one of SUNY’s 64 colleges and universities. Across the system, SUNY has four academic health centers, five hospitals, four medical schools, two dental schools, a law school, the country’s oldest school of maritime, the state's only college of optometry, 12 Educational Opportunity Centers, over 30 ATTAIN digital literacy labs, and manages one US Department of Energy National Laboratory. In total, SUNY serves about 1.7 million students across its portfolio of credit- and non-credit-bearing courses and programs, continuing education, and community outreach programs. SUNY oversees nearly a quarter of academic research in New York. Research expenditures system-wide are nearly $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2025, including significant contributions from students and faculty. There are more than three million SUNY alumni worldwide, and annually one in three New Yorkers who earn a college degree is a SUNY alum. To learn more about how SUNY creates opportunities, visit suny.edu.

 

About the City University of New York

The City University of New York is the nation’s largest urban public university, a transformative engine of social mobility that is a critical component of the lifeblood of New York City. Founded in 1847 as the nation’s first free public institution of higher education, CUNY today has seven community colleges, 11 senior colleges and eight graduate or professional institutions spread across New York City’s five boroughs, serving nearly 240,000 undergraduate and graduate students and awarding 50,000 degrees each year. CUNY’s mix of quality and affordability propels almost six times as many low-income students into the middle class and beyond as all the Ivy League colleges combined. More than 80 percent of the University’s graduates stay in New York, contributing to all aspects of the city’s economic, civic and cultural life and diversifying the city’s workforce in every sector. CUNY’s graduates and faculty have received many prestigious honors, including 13 Nobel Prizes and 26 MacArthur “genius” grants. The University’s historic mission continues to this day: provide a first-rate public education to all students, regardless of means or background. To learn more about CUNY, visit www.cuny.edu.

 

### 

Judicial review of an application to proceed in litigation under a pseudonym and seal the record

Petitioner appealed an order of the Supreme Court which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, denied Petitioner's application to proceed to trial under a pseudonym and have the record seal. 

Affirming the Supreme Court's ruling, the Appellate Division said in considering whether to grant a petitioner's request to proceed in the litigation anonymously and have the record sealed, the court must use its discretion to: 

(1) Balance the petitioner's privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to the respondent;

(2) Determine whether the petitioner is challenging a governmental activity or an individual's actions;

(3) Determine whether the proceeding requires disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy; 

(4) Determine whether identification would put the petitioner or innocent third-parties at risk of suffering physical or mental injury; and

(5) Determine whether the respondent would be prejudiced by allowing the petitioner to proceed anonymously.

The Appellate Division cautioned that "Permission to use a pseudonym [and seal the record] is not to be granted automatically ... the motion court should exercise its discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings sparingly and then only when unusual circumstances necessitate it and a petitioner seeking such permission must provide facts specific to the petitioner that will allow the motion court to exercise its discretion in an informed manner".

The Appellate Division also noted that its "review of the [instant] record revealed that the proceeding did not require disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy" and that the allegations of misconduct, while possibly embarrassing, were not highly sensitive or intimate in nature and are "insufficient, under the circumstances, to allow [Petitioner to proceed] anonymously" in the instant matter.

The Appellate Division's decision also pointed out that Petitioner failed to demonstrate Petitioner's risk of suffering physical or mental injury if required to proceed under Petitioner's legal name, and there is no question that Petitioner is challenging a governmental activity, "which implicates a public interest". 

The Appellate Division also indicated that it agreed with Supreme Court that Petitioner's stated privacy interests did not present the type of unusual circumstances that warrant the use of an anonymous caption and that it had not found any abuse of discretion in the Supreme Court's denial of the Petitioner's application. 

In the words of the Appellate Division, Petitioner's "general concerns about his reputation and employability – though perhaps valid – are insufficient to demonstrate 'compelling circumstances' to overcome the presumption of public access".

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