Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending June 26, 2026

The Next Benefits Cliff Isn’t Fraud. It’s Overload. Rising federal verification mandates are overwhelming state agency infrastructure. Here’s why legacy systems are failing and how consent-based and automated tools can close the gap.  READ NOW 

Redefining Government Efficiency This report examines how the concept of government efficiency is evolving and offers examples of what these trends look like in practice. DOWNLOAD 

Future-Proof Your Workforce With Cross-Skilling As emerging technologies reshape government operations, agencies are turning to cross-skilling to build a more adaptable workforce and close critical talent gaps. READ

Deferred Maintenance and Its Impact on Communities This eBook examines the problem of deferred maintenance for America's infrastructure, considers ways to identify deferred maintenance issues early and explores options for addressing them quickly. DOWNLOAD

AI and the Future of Digital Permitting Artificial intelligence can optimize many phases of permitting and inspections while preserving and enhancing human judgement that serves constituents. This paper explores how AI-driven permitting systems can improve resident experience and reduce staff workloads. DOWNLOAD

Protect Public Funds From Emerging Fraud Threats Expense fraud is becoming harder for finance teams to catch. AI-generated fraud tactics are creating new oversight gaps across state and local agencies. This eBook explores how organizations can identify emerging fraud tactics earlier, strengthen policy enforcement, and use automation and analytics to flag suspicious activity. DOWNLOAD

How AI Is Changing Network Requirements This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

A practical path to scaling AI across government Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Think Like a Fraudster, Adapt Like an Expert This handbook gives government leaders insights into the fraudster's mindset so they can create strategies to proactively prevent fraud and adapt to evolving tactics. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

In responding to a Freedom of Information Law request, if the custodian of the information has the ability to retrieve the record or data with reasonable effort, it is required to do so

Plaintiff' in this action submitted five requests pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law* [FOIL] to Respondent [State College] seeking several categories of documents including email correspondence between certain employees over specified date ranges and, or, containing references to Plaintiff. 

The State College's records access officer [RAO]  produced one category of responsive records but, for all remaining categories except Category 2 of FOIL request No. 3 and Category 2 of FOIL request No. 4, the RAO advised Plaintiff that review, redaction and production of responsive records would take several months and would be released on a rolling basis. Plaintiff contended that the extended time frames for those requests were unreasonable and pursued administrative appeals.

The FOIL Appeals Unit [FAU] of Respondent State University of New York [SUNY] rejected Plaintiff's claim that the extensions Respondents granted themselves to produce responsive records were unreasonable and thus were constructive denials of the requests. The FAU also sustained the RAO's two actual denials, contending the relevant requests were "very broad and without subject matter limitation, [and] therefore responsive records could not be located with reasonable effort."

Plaintiff next commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding to, among other things, compel production of the requested categories of documents and recover counsel fees. Respondents moved, pre-answer, to dismiss the petition, which Plaintiff opposed. 

Supreme Court granted the Respondents' motion, dismissed the petition and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel fees.  Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

As an initial matter, the Appellate Division addressed Plaintiff's challenges to the reasonableness of Respondents' various extensions of time and held them either moot by Respondents' disclosure of the requested documents or not properly before the Court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

As to the two actual denials, Plaintiff argued, and Respondents concede, that the petition was improperly dismissed on the ground that the relevant categories of documents were not reasonably described. The Appellate Division said it agreed Plaintiff with respect to these two categories of sought consisting of emails exchanged between two identified College employees over specified date ranges, satisfied Plaintiff's "initial burden under Public Officers Law §89(3) (a) to reasonably describe the records sought so that [Respondents] can locate them", citing Matter of Wagner v New York City Dept. of Educ., 45 NY3d 93, and other New York State Court decisions.

With respect Respondents' administrative denials based on the related, but separate, consideration as to whether it would be unduly burdensome for Respondents to comply with Plaintiff's request, the Appellate Division noted that  "When an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so", citing Public Officers Law §89[3][a]). 

The Appellate Division then observed that what constitutes reasonable effort is necessarily "a case-specific determination", noting that the motion papers are insufficient to resolve that issue and Respondents must be accorded an opportunity to answer the petition with evidence satisfying their burden "to demonstrate that [they] cannot retrieve the requested documents with reasonable effort".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the part of the Plaintiff's petition challenging nondisclosure of Category 2 of FOIL request No. 3, and Category 2 of FOIL request No. 4, must be reinstated and because that part of the petition remains undetermined, Supreme Court's denial of counsel fees is premature. The Appellate Division then ruled that "the judgment is modified, without costs, by reversing so much thereof denied to that extent; and, as so modified", affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

* Public Officers Law Article 6

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

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli and New York State Attorney General James announced the takedown of a $9 Million fraud scheme in New York City

On June 24, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the indictment and arrest of Maksim Grinberg, 53, of New York City for an alleged years-long fraud scheme that stole over $9 million from Medicaid. Grinberg and his eight companies, which operate under the name EyePic, were charged with 15 crimes for operating eye care clinics throughout New York City that falsely charged Medicaid for eye surgeries that never happened."

An investigation by the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC) and the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) found that Grinberg used credentials from ophthalmologists that were previously affiliated with his businesses to submit false claims for eye surgery procedures, fraudulently collecting millions of dollars in payments from managed care organizations funded by New York’s Medicaid program. Grinberg allegedly spent the stolen funds on expensive purchases such as a mansion in New Jersey, jewelry, international travel, and luxury cars including an Audi, a Bentley, a Porsche, and a Lamborghini. 

Despite being caught once before, Grinberg allegedly brazenly tried to cheat the healthcare system again out of millions of dollars meant for those in need," said State Comptroller DiNapoli. “Rooting out Medicaid fraud is a top priority of mine, and I will continue my partnership with Attorney General James to eliminate any such attempts. My thanks to Attorney General James for her partnership to hold Grinberg accountable.”

“Scammers who steal from Medicaid are corrupting our health care system and taking funds meant to support our state’s most vulnerable residents,” said Attorney General James. “Our investigation shut down a shameless scheme that stole millions of dollars from taxpayers and took advantage of doctors without their knowledge. We will not tolerate Medicaid fraud in New York, and I am grateful to Comptroller DiNapoli for his partnership.”

While Grinberg is not a medical professional of any kind, he allegedly set up eye care clinics in Manhattan and Brooklyn in the names of doctors to bill Medicaid for fake procedures. From January 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025, Grinberg submitted thousands of claims falsely stating that four doctors performed surgeries to remove scars on patients’ eyelid linings due to infection. However, the businesses Grinberg ran were merely optical shops for fitting eyeglasses and the surgeries he billed for never occurred. Grinberg allegedly instructed his staff to use the doctors’ credentials to bill three managed care organizations operated by New York’s Medicaid program, Fidelis Care New York (Fidelis), Healthfirst PHSP (Healthfirst), and Molina Healthcare of New York (Molina). The false claims for these fake surgeries allowed him to steal more than $9 million from Medicaid.

Grinberg allegedly used the stolen Medicaid funds to pay restitution owed from a 2017 bank fraud conviction prosecuted by the Brooklyn District Attorney and to fund his lavish lifestyle. His expenses allegedly included gambling, expensive jewelry, fine dining, caviar, high-end fashion, international and domestic travel, and private school tuition for family members. Grinberg also spent the stolen funds on rent for a penthouse apartment in Battery Park City, mortgage payments for a six-bedroom mansion with a swimming pool and three-car garage in New Jersey, and luxury cars, including an Audi, a Bentley, a Porsche, and a Lamborghini. 

Grinberg’s businesses under his EyePic brand that were indicted include:

• Family Eye Care Ophthalmology, P.C.; 9th Street Vision Care, Inc., and Parkslope Eye Care, Inc., which all operated out of the same address at 334 9th^thStreet in Brooklyn
• Flatbush Eye Care, Inc. at 1054 Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn
• Graham Eye Care, LLC at 102 Graham Avenue in Brooklyn
• Harlem Eye Care, Inc. at 2249 2nd Avenue in Manhattan
• MGBK Management, LLC at 326 9th Street in Brooklyn 

Grinberg was arraigned before Judge Danny Chun of Kings County Supreme Court. Grinberg and his businesses are charged with 15 crimes, including Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Health Care Fraud in the First Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. If convicted on the top count, Grinberg faces a maximum sentence of eight and a third to 25 years in prison.

Nota Bene: These charges are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The MFCU’s investigation was led by Detectives Mohammad Rahman and Gregory Nealon who were assisted by Detectives Aleksandr Lipkin, Daryl Sims, and Senior Detective Larry Williams, under the supervision of Detective Supervisor James Briscoe and Deputy Chief Ronald Lynch. The audit investigation was conducted by Senior Auditor Investigator Michael Di Mascio with the assistance of Auditor Investigator Andrea Lombeyda and Principal Auditor Investigator Kizzy-Ann Waldropt, under the supervision of Regional Chief Auditor Jonathan Romano. Data Analysis was performed by Senior Research Analyst Elise Roche, under the supervision of Chief Auditor Dejan Budimir.

The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant Attorneys General Yuri Zanow and Michael Hendrick, under the supervision of New York City Regional Director Twan Bounds. Investigative support was provided by Legal Support Analysts Bethany Beru, Tara Shukla, and Julia Guercio, under the supervision of Supervising Legal Assistant Alexandra Schmit.

MFCU is led by Deputy Attorney General Amy Held and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Thomas O’Hanlon. MFCU is part of the Division for Criminal Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General José Maldonado and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

New York MFCU’s total funding for federal fiscal year (FY) 2026 is $70,793,651. Of that total, 75 percent, or $53,095,240, is awarded under a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The remaining 25 percent, totaling $17,698,411 for FY 2026, is funded by New York State. New York MFCU has recovered $627,812,108 for the Medicaid program through its criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions from federal fiscal years 2019 through 2025. 

###

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 emailing a complaint to 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.

Disabled police officer placed on restricted duty because of a disability claimed unlawful discrimination as a result of his loss of opportunities to earn overtime pay

Plaintiff, a former New York Police Department [NYPD] detective, alleged he suffered unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the City of New York's Human Rights Law [HRL] as the result of his being placed on restricted duty because of his disability. 

Plaintiff contended that he was deprived of opportunities to receive overtime pay at a rate equal to his similarly situated colleagues who did not have a disability. The Appellate Division said that "Supreme Court properly found that [Plaintiff] failed to state a cause of action for discrimination under the City's HRL, citing Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582. 

Further, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff "provided no support for his allegation that the NYPD had a policy that prevented him from receiving overtime opportunities because of his disability".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "it cannot be inferred from the overtime hours given to [Plaintiff's] colleagues that [NYPD] discriminated against [Plaintiff] based on his disability

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

Attorney and law firm sanctioned for submitting a brief prepared with artificial intelligence having fictional case cites and other misrepresentations

The Appellate Division imposed sanctions on an attorney and on the attorney's law firm for submitting a brief prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence [GenAI] to the court containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain true cases actually held or decided.

Considering all of the circumstances presented, the Appellate Division deem it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction, in the sum of $8,000, on the attorney involved. 

With respect to the law firm, the Appellate Division credited the firm's statements that the  attorney's actions were contrary to the law firm's policy and that the law firm had no reason to believe that the attorney was using GenAI in a manner that exceeded the scope of technology approved for such use by the law firm.

However, as Appellate Division found that the law firm's name had appeared on a brief containing significant misrepresentations, and, in consideration of the deterrent purpose of sanctions, the Appellate Division deemed it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction on the law firm in the amount of $2,500.

As neither of the Defendant's attorneys requested the imposition of costs, and as neither of the Defendants had submitted billing statements, the Appellate Division declined to award costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a).

The Appellate Division also opined that as the issue before it was limited to whether the conduct of the attorney and the law firm warrant sanctions, "Whether disciplinary action is also warranted may be a matter for the Attorney Grievance Committee". 

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