Former Fire Company Treasurer pleads guilty to stealing almost $75,000 from the Fire Company

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Ontario County District Attorney Jason MacBride, and Ontario County Sheriff David Cirencione announced that Jill Havens, the former Treasurer of the Citizens Hose Company in Shortsville, pleaded guilty to felony theft of nearly $75,000 over a four-year period.

“Jill Havens not only exploited the trust of the members of the fire company who volunteer their time to protect their community, but her community which the company serves,” DiNapoli said. “She will now be held accountable for her crimes and the Company made whole. I thank District Attorney MacBride and Sheriff Cirencione for their partnerships in rooting out fraud.”

“Today marks an important step in moving forward for the Citizens Hose Company",   Cirencione said. “I am pleased Ms. Havens has taken responsibility for her actions and made a significant payment toward her restitution which will help the fire service in Shortsville fund necessary programs and equipment as intended. My thanks to now retired Inv. Doug Smith who spent countless hours pouring over financial records and interviewing witnesses in order to make an arrest in this case.  Comptroller DiNapoli and his staff were instrumental in assisting us throughout this investigation. District Attorney Jason MacBride has now held Ms. Havens accountable for this significant theft.  We encourage anyone who suspects that fraudulent activity is occurring in any non-profit or service organization to report it.” 

Members of the Citizens Hose Fire Company alerted the Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office when they suspected money was being stolen from the company. A joint investigation was then launched by DiNapoli’s Office, Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office. 

Havens served as the fire company’s treasurer from 2018 through August 2022. As treasurer she had access to the company’s bank account and credit card. Investigators found she issued unauthorized checks and made personal purchases with fire company funds, then altered the company’s financial records to conceal her crime. She used the money to pay off her credit cards, make retail purchases, and to pay for online video games.

Haven’s predecessor at the hose company was convicted of grand larceny in 2019, after an investigation by DiNapoli found that she had embezzled over $24,000 in company funds. In 2020, the Comptroller issued an audit report recommending various measures to enhance internal controls at the company.

Havens pled guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in Ontario County Court, in front of Judge Gregory McCaffery. She paid $40,000 in restitution today with the remainder due at sentencing. 

###

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 filing a complaint online at 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.

Failing to name all necessary parties to the litigation is fatal to petitioner's cause of action

In this action Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking, among other things, a writ of mandamus compelling New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. [Corporation] to appoint Plaintiff to the position of Senior Stationary Engineer [SSE]. Plaintiff's petition, however, failed to name all necessary parties* involved and Supreme Court  granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, without costs.

The Appellate Division, noting Petitioner had not shown that the administration of the SSE examination violated the merit and fitness clause of the New York State Constitution or that it was arbitrary, capricious, or violated due process, opined that Supreme Court had "providently granted" the Corporation's motion and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that Petitioner failed to join all the necessary parties.

Petitioner did not dispute the argument that the applicants who passed the SSE examination and were promoted to the position of SSE would be "inequitably affected by a judgment" in Petitioner's favor or contend that the examination's content or its administration was unconstitutional or in violation of law. However, Petitioner only named one applicant for the SSE position in his petition and, in the words of the Appellate Division, "did not identify any of [the] other necessary parties to this proceeding, rendering it impossible to bring the parties before the court."

* A necessary party is a party whose interests could be adversely affected by the outcome of the relevant litigation.

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

Termination of a probationary employee during the individual's probationary period

The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) terminated an employee from her non-competitive class position without notice and hearing. DOC subsequently reinstated the employee but rejected her request for backpay, whereupon the employee sued DOC for the back pay she claimed was due her.

Although the parties disputed whether Petitioner had completed her probationary period by the date of her discharge, the Appellate Division said it need not resolve that dispute because, even if Petitioner had completed her probationary period, she would not have been entitled to a pretermination hearing under the Civil Service Law, which affords tenure protections to employees serving in non-competitive class titles only once they have completed at least five years of continuous service.

Citing Civil Service Law §77, the Appellate Division held that "Because petitioner was not discharged in violation of the Civil Service Law, there is no basis to order her reinstated with backpay." 

With respect to termination of a probationary employee prior end of his or her maximum period of probation in York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rules concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: 

“After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith”. 

As a general rule, a "permanent" appointment to a position in the classified service takes effect on the date of the individual's appointment subject to the individual's successful completion of their required probationary but the individual does not attain tenure in the position until:

[a] he or she satisfactorily completes his or her maximum period of probation or 

[b] the appointing authority lawfully truncated the individual's maximum period of probation or 

[c] the individual is found to have attained tenure by estoppel. 

Further, in the event a probationer is absent due to “ordered military service,” his or her military service is to be credited “as satisfactory service” for the purpose of completing his or her probationary period if he or she is honorably discharged or released from active duty*. This means that an individual may satisfy his or her probationary period requirements while on serving ordered military duty. 

If the individual is appointed or promoted to a position while on military duty, his or her military service is also to be counted as “satisfactory service” for the purposes of probation upon honorable discharge or release from active duty.

* See §§242 and 243 of the New York State Military Law.

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

Mission Accomplished Transition Services to present The Power of Mentorship featuring Coach Carmen and others.

Special Assistant for Intergovernmental & Community Affairs at the NYS Department of Public Service, Ezra P. Scott Jr, is hosting the next Albany Professionals Under 40 and Friends' [APF 40] networking event which will focus on the importance of mentorship. The meeting will be held on:

Friday, March 27, 2026, 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM 

at a new location

The Country Inn & Suites by Radisson 

300 Broadway, 

Albany, N.Y. 12207.

Please note that “And Friends” means the space is open to both those under 40 and those 40 and over, so feel free to invite others in your network. 

Feel free to share this announcement with those in your circle.

RSVP: https://www.tickettailor.com/events/albanyprofessionalsunder40/2071900

Looking forward to seeing you there!

Evaluating a discrimination or hostile work environment claim

Supreme Court, granted the Employer's motions to dismiss certain causes of advanced in  Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, without costs, denied the Defendant's motions at issue and reinstated those causes of action.

The Appellate Division noted the Supreme Court had correctly observed that employment discrimination cases are generally reviewed under notice pleading standards and that a "plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds". 

Citing Petit v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 177 AD3d 402, the Appellate Division explained that "In an action brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), "[f]air notice is all that is required to survive at the pleading stage" and noted that NYSHRL was amended in 2019 to "put in place a more lenient standard of liability that has been likened to that of the NYCHRL".

In the words of the Appellate Division: "Although a 'single, isolated comment' or 'stray remark' will not always suffice to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim ... 'a single comment that objectifies women being made in circumstances where that comment would, for example, signal views about the role of women in the workplace' could be actionable ... Here, where [Petitioner] alleged that her supervisor implied that she only received high evaluation scores because she was engaging in sexual relations with higher-ups, the alleged remarks and attendant hostile conduct were more than 'petty slights and trivial inconveniences'".

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