Payment of back salary upon reinstated from a disciplinary suspension without pay

Supreme Court granted a petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to vacate or annul the determination of the Employer discharging Plaintiff from his employment and directed that the Employer conduct a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(1)(c). Employer appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which had denied that portion of Plaintiff's petition seeking a judgment that Petitioner be immediately awarded "full back pay." 

The Appellate Division explained that although Plaintiff may ultimately be found to be entitled to backpay starting 30 days after his suspension without pay, the amount of such backpay, if any, and the application of any offsets to any amount awarded in consideration of other employment or from unemployment benefits, "is a matter that should be addressed in the first instance at the hearing 0rdered by the court".

It should be noted that in 1985 §§76 and 77 of the New York State Civil Service Law*, which apply to certain employees in the classified service of a public employer, were amended by Chapter 851, Laws of 1985. §§76 and 77 currently provide that an employee reinstated pursuant to either of these subdivisions is to receive the salary to which he or she would have otherwise been entitled, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefit that he or she may have received during such period. The amendment did not include the clause providing for a "reduction" in the amount to be paid for any such compensation the individual earned in other employment or occupation during during such period of the employee's suspension without pay. 

* See https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/search?q=back+pay. 

Click HERE to access the instant 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.

Judicial review of an administrative agency's decision made without an evidentiary hearing

The City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel [Panel] sustained a determination of the New York City Fire Department denying a New York City Firefighter's [Petitioner] request for a reasonable accommodation from a vaccine mandate based on his religion. Supreme Court had granted the petition, in effect, annulled the Panel's determination and directed the New York City Fire Department and the City of New York to reinstate the Petitioner to his position as a firefighter with a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate and back pay. Supreme Court also found that Petitioner was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. The Fire Department and the City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's ruling on the law, with costs, and dismissed the proceeding, explaining that "In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency made without an evidentiary hearing, the standard of review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion".

The Appellate Division said that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Panel's determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious and "It is not dispositive that the . . . Panel's determination did not set forth any reasoning; a member of the Panel clarified the basis for the determination in an affirmation submitted in [this] proceeding".

The text of the Appellate Division's decision is set out below.

Matter of Hughes v New York City Fire Dept.

2025 NY Slip Op 07007

Decided on December 17, 2025

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 17, 2025 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
BARRY E. WARHIT
LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

2024-01225

(Index No. 532524/22)

[*1]In the Matter of Christopher Hughes, respondent,

v

New York City Fire Department, et al., appellants.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard Dearing, Jesse A. Townsend, Geoffrey E. Curfman, and Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for appellants.

Christina Martinez, Staten Island, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel dated July 11, 2022, which upheld a determination of the New York City Fire Department dated December 8, 2021, denying the petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation from a vaccine mandate based on his religion, the New York City Fire Department and the City of New York appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J), dated October 18, 2023. The judgment granted the petition, in effect, annulled the determination dated July 11, 2022, directed the New York City Fire Department and the City of New York to reinstate the petitioner to his position as a firefighter with a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate and back pay, and directed that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner was a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department (hereinafter the FDNY). By order dated October 20, 2021, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a mandate requiring all City employees, among others, to submit proof that they had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by October 29, 2021 (hereinafter the vaccine mandate). On November 1, 2021, the petitioner was placed on leave, without pay, since he failed to submit proof of vaccination or request a reasonable accommodation by the specified deadline. On November 5, 2021, the petitioner submitted a request to the FDNY's Equal Employment Opportunity Office for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate based on his religion, which was denied on December 8, 2021. The petitioner then appealed to the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel (hereinafter the Panel). In a determination dated July 11, 2022, the Panel upheld the FDNY's denial of the petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation. The FDNY then terminated the petitioner's employment on July 27, 2022.

In November 2022, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the FDNY and the City (hereinafter together the appellants) to annul the Panel's determination, to be reinstated to his position, for back pay, and for an award of attorneys' fees. In [*2]a judgment dated October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition, in effect, annulled the Panel's determination, directed the appellants to reinstate the petitioner to his position as a firefighter with a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate and back pay, and directed that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. This appeal ensued.

"In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency made without an evidentiary hearing, the standard of review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Achille v Laveman, 224 AD3d 744, 746 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 34 NY3d 184, 191).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Panel's determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d 870; Matter of Marstellar v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543, 545). "It is not dispositive that the . . . Panel's determination did not set forth any reasoning; a member of the Panel clarified the basis for the determination in an affirmation submitted in [this] proceeding" (Matter of Lee v City of New York, 221 AD3d 505, 506; see Matter of Marstellar v City of New York, 217 AD3d at 544).

Further, pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), it is "an unlawful discriminatory practice" for an employer "to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation" for, among other possibilities, "religious needs" (Administrative Code of the City of NY § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants' process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue (see Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d at 872; Matter of Marstellar v City of New York, 217 AD3d at 545). The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. Moreover, the record shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the Panel regarding the petitioner's request. The petitioner "failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individual dialogue" (Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d at 872).

Since the Panel's determination was not arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law, there is no basis to award back pay or court costs as incidental damages (see CPLR 7806; Matter of Rysiejko v City of New York, 232 AD3d 432, 433).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in directing that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, which was not authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule (see Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d at 873; Matter of Ferrera v New York City Dept. of Educ., 230 AD3d 772, 774).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred, inter alia, in granting the petition and, in effect, annulling the Panel's determination, and the judgment must be reversed.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

 

Rochester women pleads guilty to stealing nearly $13,000 from the New York State Employees' Retirement System by failing to report her mothers death

On December 1, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Monroe County District Attorney Brian Green and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that Karen Walsh, a 68-year-old Rochester woman, pleaded guilty to stealing $12,973 in state pension payments sent to her mother, whose death had not been reported to the pension system. As part of the plea, Walsh was ordered to pay full restitution upfront.

“Ms. Walsh tried to profit off of her mother’s death and defraud the state pension system,” DiNapoli said. “Now, through my partnership with law enforcement, she has been held accountable for her actions and must repay the money she stole. My thanks to D.A. Green and the New York State Police for their work with my office to ensure justice is served.”

“The defendant’s actions represent a misuse of the New York State pension system and, by extension, an offense against the citizens who fund it,” Green said. “Allowing such conduct would undermine the integrity of a system relied upon by countless public servants who dedicated their careers to their communities. I appreciate the thorough work of the State Comptroller’s Office and the New York State Police in this investigation that assisted in today’s resolution. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office is committed to seeking justice and accountability for all who commit economic crimes against the residents of New York State.”

“Ms. Walsh used her mother’s death to her advantage and continued to inexcusably collect the pension meant to support her mother for the remainder of her life. We will continue to aggressively investigate any case involving financial corruption and those who take advantage of the pension system. I commend the Comptroller’s Office and the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office for their partnership in this investigation,” James said.

Walsh’s mother, also of Rochester, received a monthly payment as the beneficiary of her deceased husband’s state pension. When she passed away in 2020, her pension payments should have stopped, however, Karen Walsh failed to report the death to the pension system and instead pocketed the money.  A total of $19,524 in pension payments went to Walsh’s account.

Walsh stole $12,973 by withdrawing over $4,000 from the account and transferring at least $8,000 to a second account in her mother’s name to which she also had access. She wrote checks from that second account, forging her deceased mother’s name and endorsing the back of the checks with her own signature, before depositing them into her own account. Walsh also used the second account in her mother’s name to make personal credit card payments, pay for home improvements and buy groceries.

Walsh pleaded guilty to petit larceny before Judge Van H. White in Rochester City Court.

###

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.

An award of attorneys' fees must be authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Education [DOE] which denied the Petitioner's request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, DOE appealed an order of the Supreme Court which:

1. Granted the Plaintiff's petition;

2. Directed that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status; and

3. Awarded the Petitioner $90,555.63 in back pay; and

4. Awarded the Petitioner $31,095 in attorneys' fees.

In response to the COVID-19 epidemic the  New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a mandate requiring all DOE employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Such mandate was subsequently amended to provide that [nothing] in this [mandate] shall be construed to prohibit any reasonable accommodations otherwise required by law."

Pursuant to an arbitration award between DOE and the Petitioner's union Petitioner was placed on leave without pay while remaining eligible for health benefits and "given the option to comply with the vaccine mandate, retire, resign, or remain on unpaid leave with health benefits until September 6, 2022". Petitioner elected to extend her leave without pay through September 6, 2022 and signed a release and waiver to that effect which provided, in part, "I understand that if I have not returned by September 6, 2022, I shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned and knowingly waive my rights to challenge such resignation."

On August 19, 2022, Petitioner submitted a request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate which DOE denied Petitioner's  request, finding that her application failed to meet the criteria for a religious-based accommodation. The denial did not mention the waiver.

Petitioner remained on leave without pay and retained her health benefits through September 6, 2022 but as she did not return to work by September 6, 2022, DOE deemed that, pursuant to the terms of the waiver and the arbitration award, she had voluntarily resigned as of September 6, 2022.

Subsequently Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, challenging DOE's denial of her request for a religious exemption and seeking reinstatement to her position as a teacher and an award of back pay and attorneys' fees. Supreme Court the petition be granted and that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status. In addition Supreme Court found:

a. Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate; and

b. Awarded Petitioner the principal of sum of $90,555.63 in back pay;  and 

c. The sum of $31,095 in attorneys' fees. 

DOE appealed from both the Supreme Court's order and the judgment.

The Appellate Division held that DOE's appeal from the order must be dismissed "as no appeal lies as of right from an intermediate order entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 [citing CPLR 5701[b][1])] and any possibility of taking a direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the proceeding."

Although DOE contended that the waiver expressly precludes the Petitioner's claims in this proceeding and, therefore, the proceeding should have been dismissed, the Appellate Division opined that "The waiver at issue is a contract, and its  construction is governed by contract law [and] A court's fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations".

However, as acknowledged by DOE, the Appellate Division observed Petitioner's "contractual promise not to challenge her resignation was not a waiver of her right to seek an accommodation", and thus it follows that Petitioner did waive her right to seek a religious exemption. 

The Appellate Division explained "The clear terms of the waiver, as premised on the arbitration award, permitted the [Petitioner] to comply with the vaccine mandate and return to work by September 6, 2022. One way to comply with the vaccine mandate was for the [Petitioner] to get vaccinated. Another was to successfully obtain a religious exemption and reasonable accommodation" and the amendment to the vaccine mandate earlier noted did not bar individual from seeking reasonable accommodations. 

Noting that had Petitioner had successfully obtained an exemption and concomitant accommodation during the applicable time period, she would have been in compliance with the vaccine mandate and been able to return to work. In the words of the Appellate Division, "contrary to DOE's position, the waiver did not preclude this proceeding to challenge DOE's denial of the [Petitioner's] request for a religious exemption".

In its appeal DOE did not challenge the Supreme Court's determination that DOE's denial of the petitioner's request for a religious exemption was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, as per Supreme Court's determination, prior to September 6, 2022, the Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, and DOE does not contest that determination on this appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination in this regard.

However, the Appellate Division further held that because an award of attorneys' fees was  not authorized by an agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule, "the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys' fees to the [Petitioner]."

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

Local government and school audits recently posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller

Click on the text in color to access the full audit.

On July 24, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following local government and school audits on the Internet:

Remsenburg-Speonk Union Free School District – Financial Management (Suffolk County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage the district’s fund balance. The board adopted budgets that annually overestimated appropriations by an average of $1.3 million (9%) per year, or a cumulative total of approximately $6.4 million. The majority of the overestimated appropriations ($5.6 million) were for special education instruction. From fiscal years 2019-20 through 2022-23, the district’s reported surplus fund balance ranged from 10 to 15% of the upcoming year’s budget, which was $962,000 to $1.8 million over the 4% statutory limit. While district officials appropriated a total of $5.5 million of surplus fund balance over the last five years, officials only used $350,000 of this amount after experiencing operating surpluses in four of the last five years. When the unused appropriated fund balance is added back to the district’s reported surplus fund balance, the recalculated amount ranged from approximately 12 to 23% of the upcoming year’s budget, which exceeds the statutory limit by 8 to 19 percentage points. At the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year, the recalculated surplus fund balance was $1.9 million, which exceeded the statutory limit by nearly $1.3 million. Despite having excess surplus fund balance available, the board increased taxes by an average of about $318,000 (2%) each year from 2019-20 to 2023-24.

Center Moriches Union Free School District – Payroll (Suffolk County)

Officials did not make accurate, approved and supported payroll payments to employees for tutoring, covering classes, chaperoning and sports scorekeeping. Time sheets for 13 employees were not adequately supported to ensure payments totaling $100,103 were accurately paid. Auditors questioned the reasonableness of $14,190 in payments for 258 chaperoning and sports scorekeeping events due to various discrepancies with game schedules. For example, time sheets were submitted with overlapping game times and for dates when there were no games scheduled. Officials did not develop and adopt a written payroll policy or procedures to convey expectations and processes to be followed for ensuring payroll payments to employees for miscellaneous activities were accurate, approved and supported.

Capital Region Board of Cooperative Services (BOCES) – State Aid

Although officials properly claimed state aid totaling $3.8 million for administrative expenditures, BOCES officials claimed excess state aid for facility rental costs. Because they improperly included this rental revenue received by BOCES without deducting portions that were not paid by component districts, all 23 districts collectively received almost $2 million more state aid than they were entitled to. In addition, officials properly claimed BOCES aid totaling $39.3 million for approved aidable services and reached out to State Education Department (SED) in November 2023 to correct an identified error. However, officials did not subsequently reconcile payments from SED to their financial application to verify corrections were made and that all state aid was claimed for the 2023-24 fiscal year. As a result, two component districts did not receive $29,918 of state aid owed to them.

Hyde Park Fire and Water District – Procurement (Dutchess County)

The board did not always procure capital assets, goods and services in a cost-effective and transparent manner. Specifically, the board did not seek competition when entering into a contract to purchase a ladder truck for $1.9 million or maintain written support to demonstrate that the district properly used an exception to the competitive bidding requirements. The board also did not obtain quotes when purchasing six goods and services totaling $41,316 and did not request proposals for one professional service contract totaling $19,043, as required by policy. Also, one trustee did not publicly disclose, in writing, his interest in a contract when the district purchased property from a separately incorporated fire department for $160,000.

Town of Spencer – Disbursements (Tioga County)

The board did not conduct a thorough audit of all claims paid during the audit period. As a result, auditors identified claims being paid without the board’s knowledge. Auditors reviewed all 647 non-payroll disbursements made during the audit period totaling approximately $2.1 million and identified 69 disbursements, totaling $248,900, that were not included on the board’s list of all claims that have been audited and approved for payment. Auditors also identified 16 disbursements totaling $32,100 that did not match the amount disbursed on the canceled check image. In addition, auditors reviewed 123 disbursements totaling $262,100 to determine whether they were properly supported and found 33, totaling $28,100, that lacked adequate detail for the board to complete a claims audit.

Roosevelt Fire District – Length of Service Awards Program (LOSAP) (Dutchess County)

The board did not effectively monitor all aspects of the district’s LOSAP. Specifically, the board did not ensure that the LOSAP was annually audited in accordance with state law. During the audit period, the value of the district’s LOSAP assets declined and so the district’s annual contributions had to steadily increase to ensure that there were enough assets to cover all benefits paid to the LOSAP participants and beneficiaries. The board also could not demonstrate that the procurement of LOSAP investment management services was made in accordance with the district’s procurement policy.

Pine Plains Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Dutchess County/Columbia County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 12 of the 333 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. Of the 259 water outlets sampled for testing, 50 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors reviewed 15 of the water outlets with actionable lead levels and determined that all were remediated. Although the director of facilities remediated the water outlets that exceeded the lead action level, he did not have a remedial action plan that documented which water outlets exceeded the lead action level and the remedial actions taken, or which water outlets were exempted from sampling and how they would be secured against use. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 12 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.

York Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Livingston County/Wyoming County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 130 of the 223 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan or a remedial action plan. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 130 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 74 water outlets the district sampled for testing, three water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined district officials took appropriate remedial actions on the three outlets. District officials did not report any laboratory test results for the testing cycle to their local health department, to staff, parents and/or guardians, or through DOH’s Health Electronic Response Data System.

Greenwood Lake Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Orange County)

The review assessed the Greenwood Lake Union Free School District’s progress, as of February 2025, in implementing recommendations from a prior audit, Greenwood Lake Union Free School District – Procurement and Claims Processing (2021M-147), released in December 2021. The audit found district officials did not always procure goods and services in a cost-effective manner or ensure claims were audited for accuracy and completeness. The audit included nine recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s procurement and claims processing procedures. Of the nine recommendations, all were implemented.

Port Jervis City School District – Audit Follow Up (Orange County/Sullivan County)

The review assessed the Port Jervis City School District’s progress, as of February/March 2025, in implementing recommendations from a prior audit, Port Jervis City School District – Financial Condition (2022M-152), released in December 2021. The audit determined the board and district officials did not effectively manage the district’s financial condition and so it levied more taxes than needed to fund operations. The audit included six recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s financial condition. The district has made some progress implementing corrective action. Of the six audit recommendations, one recommendation was fully implemented, two recommendations were partially implemented and three recommendations were not implemented.

On July 31, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet: 

Village of Addison (Steuben County)

DiNapoli’s office began a comprehensive review, comprised of three audits, of the village in 2022 and found the clerk-treasurer had been running the financial operations of the village with no oversight. 

As a result of the Comptroller’s audit and subsequent investigation, the former clerk-treasurer, who resigned in March 2023, was arrested in November of that year and charged with misappropriating funds and making unauthorized payments totaling more than $1.1 million over a 19-year period. In May 2024, she pleaded guilty to one count of first degree corrupting the government (B felony) and was sentenced to three to nine years in state prison in August 2024. 

N.B. As part of her sentence, the former clerk-treasurer was required to forfeit her monthly public pension. This sentence represents the first time a public official in New York surrendered her pension as a penalty for corruption while in office.

Summaries of the three Village of Addison audits released:

1. Former Clerk-Treasurer’s Misappropriation of Funds

The former clerk-treasurer did not properly deposit, record, report or disburse village funds and misappropriated more than $1.1 million for personal gain. The former clerk-treasurer was able to perform these acts without detection because the board failed to fulfill its fiscal responsibilities, provide oversight and segregate the duties of the former clerk-treasurer. She misappropriated revenue collections totaling $925,757 and made questionable or inappropriate expenditures totaling $94,562 and inappropriate and unauthorized payroll payments totaling $341,992. She also did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records, provide financial reports to the board, file payroll reports or remit biweekly withholdings in a timely manner, resulting in approximately $5,000 in penalties and interest.

2. Board Oversight

The board did not provide adequate financial oversight, obtain periodic financial reports, monitor the budget, investigate budget and revenue anomalies reported by the outside accountant, perform an effective claims audit or annually audit the former clerk-treasurer’s records. The board’s failure to fulfill its fiscal responsibilities created a negative “tone at the top” and a weak control environment that enabled the former clerk-treasurer to abuse her position for personal gain.

3. Payroll

The board did not ensure the former clerk-treasurer accurately paid wages and leave benefits for the nine full-time individuals employed as of March 2023, and two that left employment during the audit period. The former clerk-treasurer overpaid employees and made inappropriate and unauthorized payments to herself and other employees totaling $341,992 and tried to pay herself an additional $26,613. She failed to adhere to the established policy and collective bargaining agreement regarding employees’ leave benefits.

Town of Lodi – Town Hall Capital Project (Seneca County)

The board did not adequately manage the Town Hall capital project, which included the renovation of a church into the new town hall and food pantry. The board did not develop or formally establish a total estimated project cost or provide an itemized project budget or detailed timeline. The board also did not oversee the competitive bidding process for the pantry portion of the project. The board and its contractors did not ensure that required permits were obtained and required inspections were performed throughout the project. Work associated with six change orders totaling $65,537 was completed without the board’s approval. The board further approved 17 payments totaling approximately $930,000 to construction contractors without adequate supporting documentation, such as a certification that the work was performed and completed according to contract terms.

Village of Herkimer – Payroll (Herkimer County)

Village officials paid salaries and wages as authorized but did not maintain adequate employee time records or ensure separation payments were accurate or adequately supported. Auditors found employees were paid for overtime that was not always adequately documented or consistent with their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Direct supervisors also did not review or certify payroll registers, including employee names, hours worked, gross pay, deductions, and net pay, before officials and employees were paid, as required by law. Auditors reviewed pay and time records for 15 employees that were paid a total of $260,030. In general, salaries and wages were paid as authorized and employees’ hours were correctly entered into the payroll system. However, time records were not always prepared by the employees, signed by the employees, included the employees’ beginning and ending times, or reviewed by a supervisor. Auditors also identified three employees who retired from the village and received benefit payments totaling $128,254. While calculations were available for these employees to substantiate the cash payments and benefits each received, these calculations were not always consistent with the language in the applicable CBA or there was no individual employment agreement or local enactment to support the amounts paid. As a result, these employees received either questionable or unsupported separation payments and benefits totaling $73,877.

Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Albany County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 61 of the 322 (19%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted from sampling, how they would be secured against use, and what remedial actions were planned or occurred. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 61 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.

Chazy Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Clinton County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 115 of the 178 (65%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan or a remedial action plan. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 115 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 46 water outlets that the district sampled and tested, 15 water outlets (33%) exceeded the lead action level. Although district officials took appropriate remedial actions by removing or replacing these 15 water outlets, these actions were not documented in a remedial action plan to show when these water outlets were taken out of service, how they were remediated if not replaced or removed, and when they were returned to service. District officials did not always report testing results properly or in the required time periods to all required parties.

Commack Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Suffolk County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 20 water outlets (16 shower outlets and four bathroom outlets located in elementary school classrooms) of the 521 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. Auditors determined district officials did not review or update the sampling plan to identify all water outlets. Auditors also reviewed the test results for 40 of the 135 water outlets that exceeded the lead action level and determined the district did not effectively remediate 24 of the 40 water outlets. District officials did not properly report laboratory test results for testing conducted, including the results showing 135 of 765 (18%) water outlets were above the lead action level, within the required time periods or to all required parties. Test results identifying sampled water outlets with actionable lead levels were reported to the local health department an average of 18 days late, instead of one business day as required; and staff, parents and guardians were not notified of these results in writing, as required.

East Bloomfield Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Ontario County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 95 of the 246 (39%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 95 water outlets not sampled for testing or properly exempted by the district, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. District officials did not include all water outlets in their sampling plan. Although the district’s remedial action plan specified the controls implemented for water outlets the district exempted, how they were secured against use and listed all water outlets that exceeded the lead action level, it did not contain enough detail to identify individual exempt outlets and not all implemented controls were considered effective by DOH guidance. Auditors found remediation efforts were not adequate for eight of the 31 water outlets (26%) that exceeded the lead action level. While district officials notified the local health department and staff, parents and guardians of the 31 water outlets exceeding the lead action level from the initial test results, they did not follow all of the requirements, among other issues.

Evergreen Charter School – Credit Card Purchases (Nassau County)

Credit card purchases were not always properly approved or adequately supported to show they were for a proper school purpose. The board of trustees and school officials did not develop and adopt a credit card policy or procedures for monitoring and using the school’s 13 credit cards that were assigned to 13 school officials. Auditors found 255 credit card charges totaling $113,589 were not properly approved or adequately supported. Twelve of the 18 general purpose credit card payments, totaling $134,982, did not have the required signatures for payment. Reward points were accumulated and used during the audit period but officials could not explain who used the points and for what purpose.

On August 1, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following local government and school audits on the Internet:

Town of Oxford – Financial Condition (Chenango County) 

The board did not receive complete and accurate financial records and reports from the current and former supervisors, or request additional financial information, which hindered its ability to monitor the town’s financial condition, including fund balance and balance sheet details. As a result, the general, town-wide and highway funds began the 2024 fiscal year with a combined $206,637 fund balance deficit. Also, the board appropriated $315,279 of nonexistent town-wide fund balance in the 2019 through 2023 fiscal years and used $350,000 in revenue anticipation notes to address cash flow issues, which caused the town to incur $11,430 in borrowing costs.

Village of Penn Yan – Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Overtime (Yates County) 

Because village officials did not properly approve, monitor or control overtime costs of WTP employees, water customers may have been unnecessarily burdened with unneeded overtime and other costs. From June 1, 2021 through Nov. 22, 2024, WTP operators worked three different schedules that incurred significant overtime costs totaling $338,108, which annually ranged between 28-32% of the total wages paid of approximately $1.1 million. The current chief water operator accounted for the majority of the non-weekend overtime hours and 63% of these costs totaling $89,667. Additionally, the department of public works director and deputy director did not approve overtime hours prior to the WTP operators working overtime as required by the village’s employee handbook.

Cuba-Rushford Central School District – Cafeteria Purchases (Allegany County) 

Although the superintendent knew that district policy prohibited district employees from using district-purchased assets for personal use, he directed the manager to purchase food totaling approximately $1,300 for a private, personal event. Without the superintendent’s involvement, the manager also purchased food totaling $100 for a district teacher to serve at a different private non-district event. Both purchases were inappropriate and not for proper district purposes. The superintendent and other employee reimbursed the district for the purchases made. The remaining 267 purchases reviewed by auditors totaling approximately $541,000 were for proper district purposes.

Southwestern Central School District – Claims Audit (Chautauqua County)

The claims auditors did not properly audit all claims prior to payment. Of the 1,467 claims totaling $24.2 million, auditors reviewed 266 claims totaling $7.7 million and determined that 230 claims (86%) totaling $6.5 million should not have been approved by the claims auditors for payment because the claim packets did not contain sufficient supporting documentation to allow the claims auditor to determine whether the claim was a valid legal obligation, a proper charge against the district, correct or in compliance with the district’s purchasing policies. Auditors also determined that 14 Erie-2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) claims (5%) totaling $5.2 million were not properly audited as it was the board’s responsibility to do so because the claims auditors were employees of BOCES.

Cheektowaga-Maryvale Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Erie County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 207 of the 567 (37%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Additionally, district officials did not take appropriate remedial action for 22 of 39 water outlets reviewed that exceeded the lead action level to prevent students or staff from drinking from these outlets.

Indian Lake Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Hamilton County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 36 of the 76 (47%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Of the 12 water outlets the district sampled for testing, four water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that three of the four outlets with actionable lead levels had effective controls to prevent them from being used for drinking or cooking, but the district did not have a remedial action plan with the details and dates of action taken evidencing that the water outlet was disabled before the lead level was reduced. District officials did not always properly report testing results to all required parties or within the required time periods.

Glen Cove City School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 149 of the 313 (48%) water outlets identified were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. District officials did not properly secure any of the water outlets they exempted against use. Of the 82 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 19 water outlets (23%) exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that 10 of these 19 outlets (53%) with actionable lead levels were still in service without a follow-up test showing they were now below the lead action level or that controls were in place to secure these water outlets against use. District officials did not notify their local health department directly, within one business day of receiving testing results showing the 19 water outlets were above lead action levels, and never notified staff, parents and/or guardians of the test results exceeding the lead action level in writing within 10 business days, as required.

Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency – Audit Follow-Up (Dutchess County)

The purpose of our review was to assess the City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency’s (IDA’s) progress, as of September 2024, in implementing our recommendations in the audit, City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency – Project Approval and Monitoring (2021M-168), released in July 2022. The audit determined that the IDA’s board did not properly evaluate and approve IDA projects and monitor the performance of businesses that received financial benefits. The audit included eight recommendations to help officials. The review found IDA officials implemented five recommendations, partially implemented one recommendation, and did not implement one recommendation. Auditors could not determine the implementation status for one recommendation because IDA officials have not entered into any new agreements since the initial audit was completed.

A party must satisfy a very heavy burden when seeking to have an arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds

The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS] issued a notice of suspension and discipline to one of its employees [Petitioner] alleging that, among other things, Petitioner falsely held herself out as a police officer, executed an unauthorized traffic stop and arrested a motorist without cause. 

Petitioner grieved the 15 charges of misconduct DOCCS filed against her in accordance with the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement between DOCCS and the Public Employees Federation, Petitioner's collective bargaining unit representative. Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator rejected Petitioner's version of the incident as not credible, found Petitioner guilty of seven misconduct charges arising from the "motorist incident" but declined to decide the remaining eight charges, Charges 8 through and including Charge 15, stemming from allegedly inaccurate timesheets and vehicle logs. 

After reviewing Petitioner's personnel record, the arbitrator offered Petitioner a choice of penalties: 

(A) no reinstatement with an award of some back pay; or 

(B) reinstatement with no back pay for the 14-month suspension, loss of eight months of accruals, and completion of a five-day course on the use of force or anger management. 

Petitioner chose option (B), but DOCCS refused to reinstate Petitioner.

Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding to confirm the award and DOCCS cross-moved to vacate so much of the award "as assumed — rather than found — that [Petitioner] was not responsible for charges 8 through 15. Further, DOCCS argued that Petitioner's reinstatement violated public policy. 

Supreme Court granted DOCCS' cross-motion, concluding that strong public policies against "unauthorized use of force, unlawful arrests and impersonating a police officer" could not be reconciled with an award reinstating Plaintiff.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order partially vacating the award without reaching the merits of Petitioner's public-policy argument, reasoning that the arbitrator should determine the outstanding misconduct charges first and remitted the matter to the arbitrator.

On remittal, the arbitrator found Petitioner not guilty of charges 8 through 15 in a supplemental award and issued the same penalty options. 

Petitioner again chose reinstatement and DOCCS again refused to reinstate Petitioner. DOCCS and Respondent again appealed. Supreme Court agreed with Respondent, vacated the penalty and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator for a determination of a "different penalty". DOCCS appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, noting that "A court may vacate an arbitrator's award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)", ruled that "Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that 'violates a strong public policy'", noting that "An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds 'where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State'".

Observing that there was "no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Petitioner's guilt and penalty under the CBA", the Appellate Division said that its review in the instant appeal focuses on whether "the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns". [Emphasis supplied in the decision.]

Finding that DOCCS had not demonstrated such a conflict exists between constitutional, statutory and decisional law and the result of the arbitration award — reinstating Petitioner after a 14-month unpaid suspension, partial loss of accruals and completion of a five-day training and that the legal authorities cited by DOCCS set out generally applicable law,  but "the public policy considerations each authority embodies are too general to support vacating the arbitrator's penalty."

Concluding that DOCCS had not met its "very heavy burden" in seeking to have the arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds, the Appellate Division said it was "constrained to confirm the award". 

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