An appellant is required to assemble and submit a proper record on appeal

In this action to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000e et seq.), the Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court's order granting the Defendant's CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action.

Citing Ismail v Dowling, 240 AD3d 674, the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that "[it] is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal", noting that "An appellant's record must contain all of the relevant papers that [in this instance] were before the Supreme Court".

Noting that in the instant matter the "omission of relevant documents from the record renders meaningful review of the court's order virtually impossible", the Appellate Division, citing Sterling Trust Ltd. v Stern, 237 AD3d 1236, held that dismissal of the Plaintiff's appeal "is the appropriate disposition" of the matter, under the circumstances.

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released a statement on January 28, 2026, addressing New York City’s preliminary for the City's fiscal year 2026-2027

Comptroller DiNapoli released a budget analysis that estimated that out-year gaps were understated, noting that "Given federal funding uncertainty, New York City must plan defensively and be clear about the numbers" and commended Mayor Mamdani for speaking plainly about these stark fiscal realities".

The Comptroller said:

“The budget issues laid out by the mayor today echo the concerns my office has flagged for years. Despite revenue that my office anticipates will come in above planned collections in the current fiscal year, the city will very likely see spending exceed revenues for the fourth year in a row this year, a troubling trend.

“For the fiscal year (FY) beginning in July 1, 2026 (FY 2027), our assessment of these budget risks include:

"Social Services: 

• Rental Assistance prior to expansion (Risk of $1,230 million)
• Public Assistance ($628 million) 
• Non-Asylum Homeless Shelter Costs ($802 million)  
• Childcare Vouchers ($639 million)
• Foster Care Costs ($242 million)

"Education:

• Due Process Cases ($580 million)
• Class Size Mandate ($420 million)
• School Cleaning Costs ($154 million)

"Other Risks:

• Citywide Overtime ($967 million)
• Metropolitan Transportation Authority subsidies ($620 million)
• Health Insurance costs ($385 million)

“As federal and state budgets take shape, the city must fully budget for the fiscal risks, present contingency scenarios, identify cost efficiencies, and grow reserves as it finalizes its budget.”

###

Seeking an extension of time to file an appeal involving a Board of Education's administrative decision with the New York State Commissioner of Education

The School District's Board of Education [Board] determined that a parent's [Petitioner's] school children were "not entitled to a medical exemption" from the immunization requirements of New York State Public Health Law §2164.

Petitioner appealed the Board's decision to the New York State Commissioner of Education but, in the words of the Commissioner, "The only relief requested by [Petitioner], aside from interim relief, is an extension of 'time to file [a] Verified Petition for sixty [] days from the date the District completes production of all FERPA and FOIL records' previously requested by [Petitioner". 

Noting that there is no provision in the Commissioner’s regulations authorizing an extension of time to appeal after the 30-day time limitation to file an appeal to the Commissioner had passed, the Commissioner opined that in the event a petitioner seeks to file a petition more than 30 days after the decision or act complained of, the Petitioner should “set forth good cause for the delay in the petition".

As Petitioner had not done so, the Commissioner ruled that she lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter and dismissed Petitioner's appeal.

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

Clarification on claim-related submissions sent by fax posted on the Internet by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board on January 27, 2026

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board [Board] will stop accepting claim-related paper forms and documentation via fax effective April 1, 2026. This change is part of our ongoing efforts to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of processing workers' compensation documentation. 

The Board strongly encourage all stakeholders to review their current processes and make any necessary updates to ensure compliance with this new policy. Information and instructions on other submission options can be found on the Forms webpage and on each form itself.

Effective April 1, 2026, the Board’s fax number for claims will be discontinued, and faxed submissions will no longer be an acceptable method of submission for claim-related documents. 

However, faxed documents will still be accepted by the Board’s Employer Compliance and Alternate Dispute Resolution units. 

Additional reminders and updates will be issued as we approach April 1, 2026. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. 

If you have any questions, please call the Board at (877) 632-4996.

 

Petitioner in this Article 78 action challenged denial of his application for a professional license as an Architect for lack of good moral character

Petitioner in this action applied for licensure as an architect, a profession that carries with it a requirement of good moral character. As Petitioner had earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, upon review of his application it was determined that there was a substantial question as to his moral character. 

Petitioner requested and was granted a hearing before a three-member panel of the State Board for Architecture. The Panel found that Petitioner had met the character requirement and recommended that his application be granted. However, the New York State Committee on the Professions [COP]) subsequently rejected the hearing panel's recommendation, concluding that Petitioner had not demonstrated the requisite good moral character required of a licensed architect. 

Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging COP's decision to deny him licensure. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division which affirmed COP's determination.

Noting that "Under Correction Law §752, a license application shall not be denied or acted upon adversely by reason of the individual's having been previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, or by reason of a finding of lack of good moral character when such finding is based upon the prior convictions, unless: 

"(1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license sought; or 

"(2) the issuance of the license would involve an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public".

the Appellate Division observed that "In determining whether either of these exceptions applies, the licensing agency must consider a number of factors", citing Correction Law §753 [1] [a]-[h]). 

The Appellate Division found that COP had analyzed the requisite statutory factors and concluded that both exceptions applied, i.e., Petitioner lacked good moral character by virtue of his criminal history in that the "crimes committed by [Petitioner] were serious in nature". In particular, the Court observed that COP determined that these crimes of dishonesty bore upon architectural responsibilities in that "an architect must display honesty and integrity and must make significant financial decisions that impact the client and the public at large".

Addressing Petitioner's proffered certificates of relief from disabilities, although these created a presumption of rehabilitation, the Appellate Division said that COP found that they were outweighed by other considerations including the seriousness of the crimes and Petitioner's minimizing of his culpability.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "In sum, given that COP assessed the statutory factors and its findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record", COP's determination will not be disturbed.

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