ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Apr 6, 2026

Deceased employee estate denied representation and indemnification by the employer because the individual's actions were not undertaken as part of his regular duties

In this CPLR Article 78 action Petitioners challenged the determination of the Orange County Executive that the Estate of a deceased Orange County, New York employee [Deceased] was not entitled to defense or indemnification by the County in an action pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The County Executive's found that the Decease's acts did not involve the performance of his "regular duties", a determination that was sustained by Supreme Court, Orange County. Petitioners then appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division said the issue of whether a county employee's act was "committed within the scope of his [or her] public employment and the discharge of his [or her] duties" is a factual question. In the words of the Court, "Orange County Local Law 3 provides that the determination as to whether a County employee was so acting and, thus is entitled to defense and indemnification, is to be made in the first instance by the County Executive."

The Appellate Division then noted that County Executive's "determination may be set aside only if it lacks a factual basis, and in that sense, is arbitrary and capricious".

In the instant action Appellate Division found that the County Executive's determination that the Deceased was not acting within the scope of his employment or duties with the Office of the Orange County District Attorney [OCDA] in connection with his conduct alleged in the federal action. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Estate was not entitled to be "defended and indemnified" by the County.

In particular, the Appellate Division said the County Executive "rationally based his determination on the allegations of the complaint in the federal action and in the underlying federal indictment demonstrating that [the Deceased's] actions in investigating and prosecuting ... were not undertaken as part of [the Deceased's] normal duties as an OCDA prosecutor but rather were undertaken in connection with an illegal bribery scheme carried out with his friend ... purely for personal purposes, and which was actively concealed from the OCDA".

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


Apr 4, 2026

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 3, 2026

CALL FOR ENTRIES for the AI 50 Awards 2026! The Center for Public Sector AI invites all US state, local, and tribal governments, education and nonprofit entities, as well as private industry partners, that are advancing artificial intelligence, to participate in the AI 50 Awards 2026. Submissions are due April 10, 2026. LEARN MORE


Introducing the City Manager Innovation Council Build trusted relationships with city leaders shaping priorities and investment decisions. Explore the Council 


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


Modernizing and Funding Cybersecurity in the Age of AI This paper explores how state and local governments can modernize cybersecurity strategies to keep pace with rapidly evolving, AI-driven threats. DOWNLOAD


Modernizing Outdated Identity Tools in the Public Sector Many public sector organizations are trying to secure complex, modern IT environments with identity systems that were designed decades ago. This guide outlines a practical path to modern identity architecture. DOWNLOAD


Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW


Navigating Dash Cams: A Guide for Union Engagement Navigating union concerns around dash cams? This guide shows public sector leaders how to build trust, address privacy head-on, and create fair policies that support both safety and moraleDOWNLOAD 


The Workforce Tools Delivering ROI in State and Local Government Explore how public sector leaders are adopting AI, automation, and safety technologies to solve today’s workforce challenges. This new research highlights what’s working, what workers want, and where public agencies are seeing real ROI across operations, training, and service delivery. DOWNLOAD



Apr 3, 2026

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the following State Government Accountability audits

Audits of the New York State Departments and Agencies listed below were posted on the Internet by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on April 2, 2026.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access these audits.


Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Managed Care Payments to Unenrolled Providers (Follow-Up) (2025-F-21)

The 21st Century Cures Act mandated that managed care in-network providers, with certain exceptions, enroll as participating providers in the state Medicaid program by January 1, 2018. Through the screening and provider enrollment process, the Department of Health (DOH) gains some assurance of providers’ validity to provide Medicaid services. A prior audit, issued in June 2024, found that DOH did not monitor encounter claims to identify inappropriate managed care payments to providers who were not enrolled in Medicaid and found weaknesses in controls that led to over $1.5 billion in improper and questionable payments. DOH officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s 10 audit recommendations, two were implemented, five were partially implemented, and three were not implemented.


Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Recovering Managed Care Payments for Inpatient Services on Behalf of Recipients With Third-Party Health Insurance (Follow-Up) (2025-F-10)

The Department of Health (DOH) uses post-payment reviews to identify when a third-party health insurance (TPHI) carrier may be responsible for payments for services originally paid by Medicaid. The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) contracted with Health Management Systems, Inc. (a Gainwell Technologies company [Gainwell]), to perform these reviews and to pursue recoveries from TPHI carriers or providers. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, determined that DOH and OMIG lacked adequate oversight of the third-party liability recovery process. Gainwell had not billed TPHI carriers for the recovery of about $52.2 million in inpatient encounter claims that Medicaid managed care organizations paid as the primary insurance for recipients who, according to eMedNY (DOH’s Medicaid claims processing and payment system), had TPHI inpatient coverage. DOH and OMIG officials made minimal progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s eight audit recommendations, two were implemented, two were partially implemented, and four were not implemented.


Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Medicaid Payments for Early Refills of Prescription Drugs and Supplies (2024-S-16)

Through NYRx, New York State Medicaid’s Pharmacy program, the Department of Health (DOH) pays pharmacies directly for medically necessary prescription drugs and supplies provided to Medicaid members. Early refills are refills on prescriptions before the previous supply has been fully used. For the period from April 2023 through October 2024, auditors identified over 3.6 million claims totaling approximately $585.2 million for drugs and supplies refilled too early. While many claims were filled just a few days earlier than allowed by policy, nearly 43% of the findings had 20 or more excess supply days. Auditors identified multiple weaknesses in DOH’s edit logic that allowed these claims to be paid despite meeting DOH’s criteria for denial.


Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Claims Processing Activity October 1, 2024 Through March 31, 2025 (2024-S-26)

During the 6-month period ended March 31, 2025, the Department of Health’s (DOH) claims processing system, eMedNY, processed over 328 million Medicaid claims, resulting in payments to providers of over $46 billion. Auditors identified over $13.8 million in improper Medicaid payments. As a result of the audit, more than $3.4 million of the improper payments was recovered. The audit also identified 14 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. In response to these findings, DOH removed 13 providers from the Medicaid program and was reviewing the ownership status of the remaining provider.


Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-18)

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in December 2023, found the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) did not adequately oversee the physical and financial conditions at the sampled developments. Management at those developments misspent funds and failed to provide a safe and clean living environment for the residents. Auditors identified issues with 164 transactions totaling $327,363 and, at two of five sampled developments, observed hazardous conditions such as water-damaged ceilings and rusty, loose railings. DHCR officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing one audit recommendation, partially implementing four, and not implementing two.


Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City – Sunnyside Manor: Unauthorized Bank Account (Follow-Up) (2024-F-24)

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in July 2024, found that Sunnyside Manor’s Board held a checking account separate from the development’s operating account, with a balance of $14,888 as of March 31, 2022. Bank statements for the Board-held account showed numerous questionable debit card transactions. This Board-held account was not included on Sunnyside Manor’s general ledger and audited financial statements and appears to have received limited oversight. Division of Housing and Community Renewal officials have made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented.

###


Apr 2, 2026

Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order annulling employer's decision to discontinue the services of a probationary employee rejected

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to obtain a court order annulling the New York City Department of Education's [DOE] decision to discontinue Plaintiff's probationary employment, rejecting Plaintiff's argument that her termination was made in retaliation for her filing a complaint with Office of Equal Opportunity. Plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Courts decision.

The Appellate Division explained that Petitioner's challenge of the lower court's decision to discontinue her probationary employment was properly denied as Plaintiff failed to show that her termination before the completion of her maximum period of probation:

a. Was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose; or

b. Was in violation of law; or

c. Was made in bad faith.

The Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's argument that her termination was in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity was speculative, given the evidence of her misconduct, insubordination, and performance issues which had been discussed with her at meetings with administrative officials and her union representative which predated her filing of her Human Rights Law complaint. The Court held that that the record supports the conclusion that DOE's decision to terminate Plaintiff's probationary employment was due to Plaintiff's professional misconduct and insubordination. 

Addressing Plaintiff's "motion to renew" presented to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court "providently denied the motion to renew" because Plaintiff did not present any new evidence that could not have been presented in [the Plaintiff's] petition or that would have rendered a different result".

The Appellate Division noted that "No appeal lies from that part of the Supreme Court's order which denied [Plaintiff's] motion to reargue."

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


Apr 1, 2026

Circumstantial evidence considered by the hearing officer in a Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary action

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D.Turilli recommended termination of employment for a correction officer [Respondent] he found had engaged in undue familiarity by facilitating the transfer of contraband between detainees. 

Citing OATH Index No. 1593/20 (Sept. 28, 2020), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 16, 2020), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2020-0810, in which the then presiding ALJ held that “A finding based entirely on circumstantial evidence may be established in a Civil Service disciplinary proceeding so long as the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that ‘the inference drawn is the only one that is fair and reasonable'”, in the instant disciplinary action Judge Turilli noted that there was circumstantial evidence of:

a. Respondent’s surreptitious retrieval and delivery of the items captured on video;

b. Respondent's concealment of his actions on official logbooks; and

c. An audio recording of conversations between the detainees involved.

The ALJ concluded that Respondent knew that the box and the envelope had come from a detainee in the restricted housing area and that Respondent knowingly transported the contraband to another housing area. In addition, Judge Turilli said that Respondent’s denial of knowledge was uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible. 

Judge Turilli recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding that neither Respondent’s disciplinary history nor the lack of evidence regarding the contents of the box and envelope warranted a lesser penalty. 

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


Mar 31, 2026

Discrete acts of a school board over a period of time alleged to constitute misconduct fail to establish a continuing wrong

Observing that the "discrete acts of misconduct" described by Petitioner in her petition and which allegedly took place between January 2025 and September 2025, each of these acts having occurred more than 30 days prior to service of the Plaintiff's petition, the Commissioner of Education found that such acts, in the aggregate, did not constitute a continuing wrong.

The Commissioner explained that:

1. With respect to the challenged contracts, the Commissioner said it has been consistently held that the 30-day time limitation set for filing such appeals “commences upon the award[ing] of [a] contract”; and 

2.  It has been consistently held that events "like school elections and board meetings" also trigger unique and independent 30-day time limitations.

Accordingly, the Commissioner found that Petitioner’s claims were untimely and must be dismissed, indicating that "[in] light of this determination, [she] need not address the parties’ remaining contentions".

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


Mar 30, 2026

The United States Postal Service has changed its postmark dating system which may affect time sensitive mailings

The United States Postal Service [USPS] modified its postmark system used to indicate when it "took possession" of the mail entrusted to it for delivery to the addressee effective December 24, 2025. 

Postmarking at a local post offices is being discontinued in certain areas and a USPS machine-applied postmark system is being used to at USPS processing centers to indicate the date USPS took possession of mail for delivery to the addressee. As a result, the postmarks applied at a processing facility may be later than the date the mail piece was actually first received by the USPS at a local post office. 

This discrepancy is expected to become more common due to the implementation of the USPS' "Regional Transportation Optimization" [RTO] initiative. The adoption of such a  centralized service for affixing postmarks reporting the date when USPS "accepted" the mail piece may become of concern where the mail being sent to an addressee is subject to a statute of limitations or other time sensitive limitations for posting to the addressee in order to qualify as a valid timely posting. 

To assure a postmark is applied on the same day a document is accepted by the USPS for processing, individuals may be required to use local USPS retail services that will require the USPS postal patron to present the mail piece at a USPS retail counter and request the postal clerk to place a local postmark "manually" on the item being mailed. As the postmark would be applied at the time of acceptance of the piece of mail by the postal clerk, the date of the postmark is evidence of the item being in the possession of the USPS for delivery of the item having been timely mailed.

In the alternative, USPS had indicated that:

a. When a customer pays for postage at a retail counter, the postage stamp would cancelled by postal clerk and indicate the date it was accepted by the UPSP or a PVI label would be used by the postal clerk to indicate that the mailed item was accepted by the USPS for delivery; or

b. If the postal patron uses Registered or Certified Mail, the receipt the patron receives for using such service will provide the date the item was accepted by USPS for mailing,

The date the item was posted is critical should it become necessary to demonstrated that certain mail such a tax return, a tax payment, a mail ballot or other "time sensitive" mailings was timely made should it become a legal issue.

As to New York case law addressing this type of situation, in McLaughlin v Saga Corporation, 242 AD2d 393, a case involving an appeal seeking workers' compensation benefits filed with the New York State  Workers' Compensation Appeals Board [WCB], the Appellate Division initially took the position that an appeal is untimely if it is found to have been physically received by the appellate body after the statute of limitations had passed. 

Initially the Appellate Division held that although the appeal was mailed within the 30-day period allowed for filing the application seeking Workers' Compensation benefits if the WCB physically receive the item at issue after the statute of limitations had passed it  was untimely. 

In Saga when claimant sought permission to appeal the Appellate Division's decision, the Court elected to reconsider its ruling. It then reversed its initial ruling, holding that it is the date the USPS accepted the mail for processing, rather than the date of receipt by the addressee, that controls in determining the timeliness of an administrative appeal.

In the words of the Court: 

"Because [the date the appeal was due] fell upon a Saturday, however, the time limit was automatically extended to Monday, February 7, 1994 (see General Construction Law §25-a), the date upon which claimant's application for Board review was, in fact, mailed.   This was sufficient to satisfy the time limitation of Workers' Compensation Law §23 despite the fact that the application for Board review was not actually filed with the Board until February 15, 1994."

The Appellate Division then explained it issued its revised ruling after concluding that if a party has a statutory right to make a decision, which may be then filed by mail, this period would necessarily be shortened if the appellate body could insist that it physically receive the mailed notice no later than the last day of the period of limitation. 

The Court concluded that the method of service of a notice of appeal, by mail or by personal delivery, should not determine the time period available to the claimant to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.

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

Mar 28, 2026

Selected items from Internet blogs posted during the week ending March 27, 2026

Veterans Benefits Webinar Disabled veteran attorney Benjamin Krause educates veterans nationwide. Veterans can register for his April webinar and access free resources at disabledveterans.org

Introducing the City Manager Innovation Council Build trusted relationships with city leaders shaping priorities and investment decisions. Explore the Council

A Roadmap for Upgrading Resident Login and Access Modernizing how residents log in to government services doesn’t require a massive IT overhaul. This guide explains how state, provincial, and local agencies can introduce Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)—the systems that manage citizen registration, login, and multi-factor authentication—using a phased approach that works with existing platforms. DOWNLOAD

Why SD-WAN is the Future of Government Networking Government networks are under growing pressure as agencies adopt cloud services, deploy AI tools and deliver more digital services to residents. This paper explains why software-defined wide area networking (SD-WAN) is emerging as a critical foundation for modern government infrastructure, helping agencies increase capacity, strengthen security and reduce networking costs. DOWNLOAD

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

The H.R. 1 Mandate: Modernizing Medicaid and SNAP H.R. 1 adds substantial administrative obligations to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Learn why automation is essential to handle growing workloads and complexity. DOWNLOAD

What It Takes to Rebuild After Wildfires Discover how small teams leverage technology to deliver faster, more resilient disaster recovery. LISTEN NOW



Mar 27, 2026

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.


Mar 26, 2026

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.

Mar 25, 2026

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.

Mar 24, 2026

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.



Mar 23, 2026

SUNY Research Webinar highlighting the women who shaped New York State’s past and continue to inspire its future

Join the SUNY Research Foundation Webinar on Wednesday, March 25, 2026 highlighting the women who shaped New York State’s past and continue to inspire its future. Hear from the Radley Fellows as they share their groundbreaking research.

This event honors the vision of Dr. Virginia Radley, whose fellowship uplifts SUNY scholars exploring women’s leadership, the humanities, and inclusive civic impact.

Register today at https://ow.ly/6y6C50YwwLW

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases 2025 fiscal scores for certain New York State Villages and some New York State Cities

On March 21, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that seven villages were designated in fiscal stress under his office’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System (FSMS) for their fiscal year ending in 2025. DiNapoli’s office evaluated all non-calendar fiscal year local governments that filed their annual financial reports (AFR) in time to be scored. One village was designated in “significant fiscal stress,” four in “moderate fiscal stress,” and two as “susceptible to fiscal stress.”

The Village of Island Park (Nassau County) was classified in “significant fiscal stress.” The four villages designated in “moderate fiscal stress” were: Alexander (Genesee County), Coxsackie (Greene), Liberty (Sullivan) and Tivoli (Dutchess). The two villages classified as “susceptible to fiscal stress” were: Homer (Cortland) and Huntington Bay (Suffolk).

“The number of local governments with a fiscal stress designation remains low, but many cannot be evaluated because they do not file their required annual financial reports in time to be scored,” DiNapoli said. “A gap in filing is in itself a risk and creates a missed opportunity to identify fiscal stress and take corrective action before more drastic steps are needed. With uncertainty coming out of Washington having the potential to affect state and local funding and the economy, officials must closely monitor their financial condition to be able to adjust to changes that may lie ahead. I encourage local governments to use our self-assessment tool to help them budget and avoid pitfalls.”

The latest round of fiscal scores are for local governments with fiscal years ending between Feb. 28 and July 31, 2025, including 518 villages, most of which have a fiscal year ending on May 31. The scores, which are based on self-reported data, also cover 17 cities with non-calendar fiscal years, including the “Big 4” cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, each of which have fiscal years ending on June 30.

FSMS

Local governments are statutorily required to file an AFR with DiNapoli’s office following the close of their fiscal year. In total, 101, or almost 20% of local governments did not file their AFR in time to receive a FSMS score, a date that is at least three months past their statutory filing deadline. Over 386,000 New Yorkers reside in these municipalities.

Notably, three villages did not file in time to receive a score for 2025 and were in stress in fiscal year 2024: Saugerties (Ulster), Washingtonville (Orange) and Kaser (Rockland). The number of non-filers with non-calendar fiscal years has doubled since 2014.

DiNapoli’s office continues an outreach campaign to remind local officials of the statutory filing deadlines and provide assistance as needed and recently launched an online resource that highlights the importance of the AFR and tracks non-filers. It includes a tool for the public to check the filing status of any local government.

FSMS, which DiNapoli launched in 2012, assesses levels of fiscal stress in local governments using financial indicators including year-end fund balance, cash position, short-term cash-flow borrowing and patterns of operating deficits. It generates overall fiscal stress scores, which ultimately determine designations. The system also separately analyzes environmental indicators to provide insight about local economies and other challenges that may affect a local government’s or school district’s finances. This information includes population trends, poverty and unemployment.

DiNapoli’s office provides a self-assessment tool that allows local officials to calculate fiscal stress scores based on current and future financial assumptions. Officials can use this tool to assist in budget planning, which is especially helpful during periods of revenue and expenditure fluctuations.

In January, DiNapoli released fiscal stress scores for school districts. In September, his office will release scores for municipalities with a calendar-year fiscal year, which includes counties, towns, most cities and a few villages.

List of Villages and Cities in Fiscal Stress
Municipalities in Fiscal Stress

List of Villages and Cities that Failed to File Financial Information
Municipalities that Failed to File or Inconclusive List

Complete List of Fiscal Stress Scores
Data Files

FSMS Search Tool
Tool

AFR Non-Filers
Webpage Tracker Tool



Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com