Division of Local Government Services Training Program

Registration for DOS Local Government Training program’s Winter Webinar series for Local Governing Boards, Planning Board, Zoning Boards of Appeals, Zoning Enforcement Officers, Planning Staff and other officials is now open! The webinars will be held on Monday evenings in December and January from 6-8pm on WebEx. We will conclude the series with a daytime training for planning and zoning board clerks and other municipal staff on Thursday, January 22 at 2pm. View the training schedule here Zoning Basics for Enforcement Officials and Board Members: 12/22/2025 6-8 PM (2 hours credit) Register Planning Board Overview: 1/5/2026 6-8 PM (2 hours credit) Register Zoning Board of Appeals Overview: 1/12/2026 6-8 PM (2 hours credit). Register Essentials for Planning and Zoning Board Staff: 1/22/2026 2-3:30 PM (1.5 hours credit) Register

The Division of Local Government Services The Department of State’s Local Government Training staff teaches land use planning, regulation, local governance and procedure to local elected and appointed officials at regional and county workshops across the state. The staff is also available to assist members of planning boards, zoning boards of appeals, local governing boards, and municipal staff with technical assistance, information, explanations, tips and examples of successful approaches to land use and other local regulation. Members of planning boards and zoning boards of appeals are required by state statute to obtain four hours of training a year. All on-site and online interactive training courses offered by local government training staff count toward this requirement. To discuss scheduling a training workshop or obtain other assistance, call the Local Government Training program at 518-473-3355 or email localgov@dos.ny.gov. Learn More

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending December 19, 2025

Reports by New York State Comptroller Comptroller Thomas P DiNapoli. Comptroller DiNapoli reports that some members of Generation Z (born 1997-2012) and Millennials (born 1981-1996) — are facing a complex economic landscape that threatens their financial well-being. Click new report released.

Is Your FOIA Records Process Optimized? Evaluate your agency's public records workflow and uncover improvement opportunities for 2026 Learn More

Stopping Next-Gen Identity Fraud How AI-enabled identity tools and collaborative strategies combat rogue AI, synthetic identities and remote-hiring vulnerabilities. READ NOW

Procuring a Modern Payment Platform Payments are a critical but often underprioritized factor in user experience. As governments work to become more responsive and resident-centric, payment strategies should emphasize enterprise platform approaches and innovative capabilities like digital wallets and recurring payment options. This paper offers practical advice for procuring modern payment solutions that support a superior user experience. DOWNLOAD

Navigating H.R. 1: A Checklist for the New SNAP Compliance Landscape H.R. 1 raises the stakes for state SNAP programs. With rising administrative costs and penalties tied to payment errors, this checklist helps agencies pinpoint where automation and data strategies can reduce risk, support new rules, and control costs. DOWNLOAD

Boost Transparency With Efficient FOIA Workflows Identify workflow gaps and strengthen your records processes with a quick assessment. Read More

First to FedRAMP: Government-Trusted Legal Solutions Industry-leading CLEAR, Westlaw, and Practical Law achieve FedRAMP In-Process for federal agencies. Learn More

Government Leaders Boost Transparency and Trust Learn how public-sector agencies strengthen community confidence through improved transparency and accountability. READ NOW

Elevating Constituent Services with Connected Experiences This thought leadership paper explains what your agency needs to create connected experiences and provides several real-world examples of how connected experiences have transformed government services. Read more to find out how your organization can start building connected experiences! DOWNLOAD

The Hidden Weak Point in Public Sector Networks Perimeter defenses aren’t failing, they’re just not enough. This guide explores how attackers exploit credential-based access to move laterally across government networks, and why control-plane security is key to closing the gap.  DOWNLOAD

Future Forward Government A space created for state and local IT leaders and decision-makers who are charting the course of tomorrow's public sector. EXPLORE

How AI-Powered Agents Streamline State and Local Service Delivery Explore how AI agents can help state and local governments handle routine tasks, streamline operations, and give staff more time for complex issues. DOWNLOAD

How Better Government Gets Built: Lessons from the Field From siloed systems to shifting budgets, the road to modern government is full of obstacles. This guide breaks down what agencies need to plan and execute meaningful change. Learn how public sector leaders are navigating funding, digital services, and stakeholder buy-in to build resilient, responsive, and equitable government operations. DOWNLOAD

Visibility and Resilience: Embracing Autonomous Technologies in Government State and local governments are operating in a cybersecurity environment where expanding attack surfaces, AI-driven threats, and limited staffing make traditional endpoint tools increasingly inadequate. Agencies need real-time visibility, faster response, and modern automation to safeguard critical services. This guide offers IT and security leaders a clear, practical roadmap for advancing autonomous endpoint management and strengthening operational resilience. DOWNLOAD

Print is the Weak Link in Government IT Modernization Many agencies are embracing modernization, yet outdated print systems remain a significant but often overlooked risk. This paper examines how legacy print environments undermine Zero-Trust security models, inflate IT costs, and slow operations. Learn how modern, cloud-based print solutions help governments enhance security, streamline workflows, and achieve measurable efficiency gains across distributed teams. DOWNLOAD

How Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Constituent Experience in Government This paper explores how AI is transforming constituent services in state and local government by streamlining operations, improving accessibility, and enhancing public trust. Through real-world examples, it offers practical guidance for implementing scalable, people-centered AI solutions that deliver measurable impact. DOWNLOAD

Appellate Division notes errors in lower court's decision involving employee's appeal of his dismissal from his employment following a Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary action

Plaintiff had been formerly employed by the Town's Highway Department as a laborer.  He alleged the Town, the Town's Highway Department and certain named individuals [hereinafter "Defendants"] had retaliated against him by terminating his employment for reporting incidents of alleged corruption within the Highway Department to federal and local authorities. 

The Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order in which Supreme Court had granted Defendants motion to dismiss certain allegations set out in Plaintiff's petition while the Defendant appealed the Supreme Court's ruling which denied its motion to dismiss certain branches of Plaintiff's complaint.

The Appellate Division opined that:

1. "On a motion to dismiss a [complaint] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) the movant has the burden of providing documentary evidence that utterly refutes the [plaintiff's] factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law".

2. "On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory".

3. "Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and such proof is considered but the motion has not been converted to one for summary judgment, 'the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [the proponent] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it . . . dismissal should not eventuate'" [citations omitted.]

Acknowledging Supreme Court had properly directed dismissal of so much of the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action as alleged retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to 42 USC §1983 insofar as asserted against one named defendant, the Appellate Division noted that Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the Defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first cause of action, alleging a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b against the Town and the Town Highway Department. 

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Civil Service Law §75-b(2)(a)(ii) provides that adverse employment action may not be taken against a public employee based upon his or her disclosure of information 'which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action'". Further, alleged "Improper governmental action" means "any action by a public employer or employee, or an agent of such employer or employee, which is undertaken in the performance of such agent's official duties, whether or not such action is within the scope of his [or her] employment, and which is in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation" (Civil Service Law § 75-b[2][a]). 

Accepting the facts as alleged in the second amended complaint in the instant action as true, and granting Plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the Appellate Division viewed the first cause of action adequately having stated a cause of action alleging a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b. 

In contrast, the Court noted that the documentary evidence submitted by the Town defendants did not utterly refute Plaintiff's "allegation that [Plaintiff's] employment was terminated in retaliation for his disclosure of alleged corruption to authorities in violation of Civil Service Law §75-b or show that he does not have a cause of action on this basis."

In addition, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "also erred in granting that branch of the Town defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the third cause of action which alleged a breach of a contract against the Town and the Highway Department". The Court pointed out that in his third cause of action Plaintiff alleged that the Town and the Highway Department terminated the Plaintiff's employment in violation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Town in 2017. 

The Appellate Division said the stipulation at issue, among other things, provided that the Town would "not be arbitrary and capricious in administering discipline to [the Plaintiff]" as the Town defendants' evidentiary submissions but:

1. Failed to utterly refute the Plaintiff's allegations that the Town and the Highway Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating his employment, in violation of the stipulation of settlement; and

2. Failed to demonstrate that the [Plaintiff's] allegation that the Town and the Highway Department breached the stipulation of settlement was not a fact at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding it; and

Finally, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the Town defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss so much of Plaintiff's sixth cause of action in which Plaintiff alleged retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to 42 USC §1983 insofar as asserted against the Town defendants [other than a particular named individual]. 

The Court explained that "To maintain a [42 USC] §1983 action, a plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct complained of deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" and the "First Amendment protects a public employee from retaliation by his or her employer for the employee's speech only if the employee sp[eaks] [1] as a citizen [2] on a matter of public concern". 

Contrary to the Town defendants' contention, the Appellate Division found that Defendants had failed to establish at this stage of this action that the Town defendants, other than the one particular named defendant referred to hereinabove, are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Governor Hochul Signs Legislation expanding New York City Police Pension Benefits for surviving spouses

On December 18, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation expanding New York City Police pension benefits, allowing surviving spouses of Tier 3 New York City Police pension fund members to retain accidental death benefits upon remarriage.

“Our police officers have selflessly served New Yorkers, ensuring the safety of communities within all five boroughs,” Governor Hochul said. “Signing this legislation means that spouses have another way to honor the service of their loved ones, while also providing them with the financial stability that their hardworking, fearless partners deserve.”

When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it reflects the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community. Remarriage does not always eliminate the financial needs or responsibilities that a surviving spouse may have, particularly if they have children or ongoing financial commitments arising from the marriage with the officer.

Legislation S7314C/A7949A will allow eligible surviving spouses of Tier 3 New York City Police Pension Fund (PPF) members to continue receiving certain line of duty death benefits upon remarriage. Extending these benefits to an officer’s surviving spouse provides long-term financial stability and security for those recipients and their dependents.

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education: Decision No. 18,651 regarding a personnel matter.

N.B.: LINKS in blue appearing in the text of the decision of the Commissioner of Education posted below are identified as "AI Overview" and were not inserted by NYPPL.

In this appeal to the New York State Commissioner of Education Petitioner challenged the determination of a Board of Education [Respondent] to terminate his employment and alleged that Board retaliated against him after he filed a Dignity for All Students Act [Dignity Act] complaint on behalf of his children. 

Petitioner and his two children reside within Respondent’s district and Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a substitute teacher’s aide (2017-2022) and a groundskeeper (2022 to 2025).

Petitioner’s children complained of their treatment by a sports coach [Coach], the spouse of a board member, resulting in Petitioner filed a complaint against the Coach pursuant to the Dignity Act.

Respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator informed Petitioner that it has substantiated some of the allegations concerning the Coach and indicated that "the district would address these findings internally" but was precluded from "shar[ing] [the] … specific action to be taken." 

Petitioner also alleged that the members of the Board appeared to observe him working, suggesting a member had arranged to do so in an effort to intimidate or harass him.  Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that the simultaneous presence of Petitioner and the board member was coincidental.

Subsequently Respondent voted to terminate Petitioner’s employment with Respondent and Petitioner appealed the Board's action.  

Respondent contends that the appeal must be dismissed against the board member as he was neither named in the caption of the appeal nor served with a copy thereof.[1] On the merits, Respondent argued that Petitioner has not articulated a clear legal right to his requested relief.

The Commissioner declined to address Petitioner’s claim of wrongful termination explaining "employee discipline is within respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction and is generally subject to procedures established in statute or in applicable collective bargaining agreements and/or employment contracts”. Accordingly, the Commissioner said that she declined to “sit as a super-personnel department” and second-guess Respondent’s employment decisions.

In contrast, the Commissioner observed that Petitioner’s claim of retaliation for filing a Dignity Act complaint was within her jurisdiction and addressed that aspect of Petitioner's complaint, observing that:

1.  "The Dignity Act prohibits school districts and their employees from “tak[ing] ... retaliatory action against any such person” who “makes ... a report” alleging bullying or harassment (see Education Law §16); 

2.  A claim of retaliation requires a petitioner to show that he or she (a) engaged in protected activity; (b) was subjected to adverse action; and (c) causation" [Citations omitted]; and 

3. In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested" [Citations omitted]".

The Commissioner concluded that "Petitioner has not met his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination", indicating that the precipitating event underlying Petitioner’s termination was his use of a district vehicle to salt his driveway[2] and there is no evidence that the Respondent’s employee who investigated this incident was aware of Petitioner’s Dignity Act complaint.[3]  

Based on the results of the Respondent's employee's investigation, the school superintendent recommended that the Board terminate Petitioner’s employment and there is no evidence that the Board member “discuss[ed] his personal history with Petitioner with any other board member, or otherwise attempt[ed] to influence their votes regarding Petitioner’s termination.”  

The Commissioner held that Petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination and dismissed Petitioner's appeal.

[1] To the extent the petition could be construed as an application to remove the board member, it does not comply with the applicable procedural requirements [Citations omitted]. 

[2] Petitioner claimed that he accidentally engaged the salter mechanism.

[3] The investigating employee began her employment in 2025, two years after the Dignity Act determination at issue herein.

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