New York State local government and school audits posted on the Internet on January 20, 2026

On January 20, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that a number of local government and school audits and certain follow-up reports were posted on the Internet.

Click of the text in color to access the audits and follow-up reports

Mattituck Fire District – Claims Audit (Suffolk County) The board did not ensure that all nonpayroll disbursements were appropriate, adequately supported, audited and approved before claims were paid. Auditors determined that the board did not always perform a thorough and deliberate audit of claims before approving payments, and the treasurer paid claims that were never audited by the board. Auditors reviewed 135 claims totaling $194,478 and determined that the board should not have approved 90 claims totaling $125,562.The board did not ensure that all nonpayroll disbursements were appropriate, adequately supported, audited and approved before claims were paid. Auditors determined that the board did not always perform a thorough and deliberate audit of claims before approving payments, and the treasurer paid claims that were never audited by the board. Auditors reviewed 135 claims totaling $194,478 and determined that the board should not have approved 90 claims totaling $125,562.

Town of Horseheads – Claims Auditing (Chemung County) The board did not conduct a thorough audit of claims to ensure that individual claims contained supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements and town policies. Auditors reviewed 274 claims totaling $897,321 and 206 claim payments totaling $414,075 and determined that 61 claims totaling $473,309 were paid prior to the board’s audit.

North Creek Fire District – Board Oversight (Warren County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of district financial activities related to budgeting, monthly financial reporting, bank reconciliations, annual financial reporting, annual audits and policy reviews. The board did not develop and adopt realistic budgets taking into consideration multiyear financial planning or ensure that the treasurer provided sufficient financial reports. The board also did not conduct an annual audit to provide oversight and ensure accuracy of records or ensure the treasurer filed required annual reports and failed to periodically review required policies including the district’s code of ethics, purchasing and investment policies.

Center Moriches Fire District – Fiscal Transparency (Suffolk County) The board did not obtain annual audits in a timely manner or ensure the treasurer filed all annual financial reports (AFRs) with the State Comptroller’s office. Additionally, district officials had no record of the board ever using an RFP process to contract the CPA firm’s services for the annual audit or an engagement letter with the CPA firm detailing the services to be provided. As of Nov. 15, 2025, the treasurer has not filed the 2020 through 2024 fiscal year AFRs and the last filed AFR, for fiscal year 2019, was filed 122 days late.

Steuben County – Financial Management County officials did not effectively manage the county’s fund balance. As a result, as of Dec. 31, 2024, the county maintained unrestricted fund balance in the general fund totaling $103.4 million (48% of the upcoming year’s budget) and in the road fund totaling $15.5 million (53% of the upcoming year’s budget). The legislature did not adopt an adequate fund balance policy or develop a comprehensive, written multiyear financial or capital plan. After initial audit discussions with county officials, the legislature updated its administrative code to add a maximum general fund balance goal to its fund balance policy and adopt a reserve fund policy. The legislature also created and funded new reserves in July 2025 to significantly reduce its unrestricted fund balance.

Colesville-Windsor Fire District – Board Oversight (Broome County) The board did not provide adequate financial oversight. Specifically, the board did not review periodic financial reports to assess the district’s operations or conduct an annual audit of the secretary-treasurer’s records to verify that they properly recorded collections and disbursements and maintained current and accurate records and reports.

Cincinnatus Fire District – Board Oversight (Cortland County)  The board did not always properly safeguard assets. Although the board received sufficient monthly financial reports, monitored financial  operations throughout the year and ensured that annual financial reports were filed in a timely manner, the board did not ensure that district assets were properly accounted for and safeguarded, including 19 assets totaling $33,009 that were not onsite. These assets included items such as computers, cameras and night vision goggles. Also, one board member did not complete the required fiscal oversight training within 270 days of taking office which, as of March 11, 2025, was 165 days past the deadline.

Ashville Fire District – Procurement and Board Oversight (Chautauqua County) The board did not demonstrate that the purchase of equipment was done in accordance with state law, as well as provide proper oversight of equipment purchases. In addition, the board should have periodically reviewed and updated the district’s purchasing policy, but the board has not updated the policy since 2014. As a result, the board could have been more fiscally responsible by increasing competition and avoiding vendor overpayments that would have totaled $6,500 by ensuring vendor invoices agreed with contract terms. The board also could not demonstrate that it complied with competitive bidding requirements when purchasing two fire trucks, totaling $796,200, as required by law.

Morristown Fire District – Board Oversight (St. Lawrence County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of district financial operations, and it did not always conduct a proper audit of claims prior to payment. Furthermore, the board did not ensure the secretary-treasurer filed required annual financial reports. The board also did not ensure the secretary-treasurer deposited district collections in a timely manner, performed monthly bank reconciliations and maintained accurate financial records and reports, or conducted an annual audit of the secretary-treasurer’s records. In addition, the board did not develop and adopt a procurement policy or investment policy or ensure claims were properly supported and audited and approved prior to payment.

Rotterdam Fire District Number 7 Schonowe – Claims Auditing (Schenectady County) The board did not conduct a thorough and deliberate audit of all claims paid during the audit period. Auditors reviewed 79 claims totaling $941,015 and determined that none of the claims were audited and approved by the entire board, as required. In addition, the lack of a claims audit increased the risk that claims for improper purposes could be paid.

Follow Up Reports

Chenango Valley Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Broome County) This review assessed the Chenango Valley Central School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in Chenango Valley Central School District – Network User Accounts and Information Technology Contingency Planning, released in June 2023. The audit determined that district officials did not adequately manage network user accounts or develop and adopt an information technology (IT) contingency plan. To help district officials improve managing network user accounts and assist in adopting an IT contingency plan, the audit included a public report that contained three recommendations. The district’s IT Director, board and officials fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented two recommendations.

City of Fulton – Audit Follow-Up (Oswego County) This review was to assess the City of Fulton’s progress in implementing recommendations in City of Fulton – Capital Projects, released in February 2022. The audit determined that city officials did not appropriately maintain capital projects fund records, monitor project financial results against budgets and close out records for completed projects. The audit included 12 recommendations to help officials improve their controls over capital projects. The city has made minimal progress implementing corrective action. Of the 12 audit recommendations, one recommendation was fully implemented, two recommendations were partially implemented, and eight recommendations were not implemented. Auditors could not determine the implementation status for the remaining recommendation because certain capital projects records were unavailable or inadequate. 

Gates Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Monroe County) This review was to assess the Gates Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in Gates Fire District – Board Oversight of Long-Term Planning, released in June 2024. The audit determined that the board and district officials did not properly plan for the district’s long-term financial and capital needs, which inhibited the board and officials from effectively managing finances and addressing future operating and capital needs. The audit included eight recommendations to help officials effectively manage finances and address future operating and capital needs. The district has implemented corrective action for all eight audit recommendations.

City of Mount Vernon – Audit Follow-Up (Westchester County)  This review was to assess the City of Mount Vernon’s progress, as of July/August 2025, in implementing recommendations in City of Mount Vernon – Financial Reporting and Oversight, released in September 2020. The audit determined that the city council and officials did not have adequate financial information for the effective management of operations and, as a result, the city lost its credit rating. The audit included 11 recommendations to help the board improve its oversight of the district’s financial activities. The city has implemented three recommendations, partially implemented four recommendations and not implemented four recommendations.

Monsey Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Rockland County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Monsey Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in Monsey Fire District – Board Oversight released in July 2020. The audit determined that district officials did not provide adequate oversight to ensure district financial records and reports were prepared, filed and/or audited. The audit report contained three recommendations to help officials improve their controls over financial records and reports. The board implemented one recommendation, partially implemented one recommendation and did not implement one recommendation.

Montauk Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Suffolk County)  The purpose of the review was to assess the Montauk Fire District’s progress in implementing  recommendations in Montauk Fire District – Board Oversight, released in December 2024. The audit determined that the board did not adequately monitor financial activities or ensure that appropriate records and reports were maintained and audited to comply with statutory requirements. To help the board monitor financial activities and ensure appropriate records and reports were maintained or audited to comply with statutory requirements, the audit contained four recommendations. The district has partially implemented all four recommendations.

Ridge Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Suffolk County) This review was to assess the Ridge Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in Ridge Fire District – Board Oversight of Treasurer’s Fiscal Duties, released in January 2022. The audit determined that district officials did not provide adequate oversight of the treasurer’s fiscal duties and could not explain why the bank balances presented on the treasurer’s reports for three consecutive months contained discrepancies totaling $2.96 million. The audit included three recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s financial operations. The board partially implemented one recommendation and did not implement two recommendations.

Ticonderoga Joint Town/Village Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Essex County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Ticonderoga Joint Town/Village Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in Ticonderoga Joint Town/Village Fire District – Board Oversight, released in April 2024. The audit determined that the board did not ensure required annual audits were completed and annual update documents were filed in a timely manner. To help the board improve its controls over monitored financial activity and ensure appropriate records and reports were maintained and filed in a timely manner, the audit report contained two recommendations. The district has partially implemented the audit’s two recommendations.

###

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits

On December 16, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli  announced the following local government and school audits were posted on the Internet.

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

Haverstraw-Stony Point Central School District – Financial Management (Rockland County)

The board and district officials overestimated some appropriations, underestimated certain revenues, and  made unbudgeted year-end transfers totaling $94.4 million. This collectively reduced the effectiveness of managing the district’s financial condition. The board and district officials also made it appear that they needed more funding to meet operational costs than was necessary by appropriating fund balance to balance the budget. Because realistic budgets were not adopted, the board and district officials accumulated significant fund balance but generally did not need those appropriations. The variances between the budgets district officials presented to taxpayers and the district’s actual operational results during the audit period were over $118 million. Of the $94.4 million in year-end transfers, $57.6 million went to the district’s reserves. In some circumstances, the year-end transfers totaling $19.1 million were also not approved by the board before the transfer was made.

Riverhead Central School District – Financial Operations (Suffolk County)

District officials did not provide the board with complete and accurate information in a timely manner to enable them to monitor the district’s financial operations. Financial reports submitted in six of the 22 months to the board were between 60 and 107 days after month’s end. Budget transfers were not properly approved or reported to the board. Also, only one of the 47 budget transfers totaling $12.3 million reviewed was approved by the board.

Henrietta Fire Company Inc. – Board Oversight (Monroe County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations, adopt detailed, written bylaws or financial policies, or enforce the limited financial provisions which the bylaws and financial policies contained. The board generally did not review bank statements, canceled check images and bank reconciliations for any accounts to monitor financial operations. Therefore, the board did not have the necessary information to help it ensure that the company’s financial operations were adequately accounted for, recorded and reported. As a result, the company had an increased risk of theft, waste and abuse of company resources.

Otsego County – Court and Trust Funds

Pursuant to state abandoned property law, money that has remained in the hands of the county treasurer for a period of three years, together with all accumulated interest less the county treasurer’s statutory fees, is deemed abandoned property. After public notice, the county treasurer should pay all abandoned property to the State Comptroller by April of the next year. The treasurer, county clerk and Surrogate’s Court clerk generally maintained appropriate records and properly reported court and trust funds. However, auditors identified $74,150 from 15 actions that improperly remained in the treasurer’s custody that should have been turned over as abandoned property.

Hilton Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Monroe County)

A previous audit, Hilton Central School District – Network Access Controls (2022M-200), determined that district officials did not establish written policies or adequate written procedures for managing network user account access. To help officials improve their network access controls, the audit included a public report that contained three recommendations and confidentially conveyed sensitive IT control weaknesses and recommendations. Auditors determined that officials partially implemented all three recommendations. As a result, the district’s network continued to have increased risk for unauthorized access, misuse or data loss. Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing the recommendations related to the sensitive IT control weaknesses, and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

Disciplinary decision and the penalty imposed remanded for review with instructions to consider only timely charges and specifications

In this appeal of an administrative disciplinary action which found an employee of the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] guilty of the charges filed against him, the Appellate Division notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure".

Further, opined the court, it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The employee [Petitioner] had been served with a notice of charges and specifications alleging that he had engaged in three specified acts of misconduct when he used biased and discriminatory language in three Facebook comments he had posted on the Internet. One such comment, however, was subsequently determined to have been "untimely" at the time it was charged and served.

The Appellate Division's decision notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure" as it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The revised Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation had not distinguished between the sanction initially recommended by the hearing officer in consideration of finding the employee guilty all three alleged charges of misconduct and an appropriate reasonable sanction recommended by the hearing officer to be imposed based on the employee in consideration of the hearing officer's finding the individual guilty of the surviving two timely alleged acts of misconduct. 

The Appellate Division then remitted the matter to UCS for a new determination and recommendation of a penalty to be made by a hearing officer based solely on the two timely specified acts of misconduct, noting that "DILLON, J.P., LOVE and GOLIA, JJ., concur" while DOWLING, JJ., "voted to confirm the revised determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits, with a memorandum."

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted local government and school audits on the Internet

On November 20, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit posted on the Internet.

Town of Elmira Fire District No.1 – Long-Term Planning (Chemung County)

District officials did not establish or adopt up-to-date long-term capital and financial plans. The district had five vehicles at or beyond their useful life estimates in 2025. Auditors estimated that the total vehicle replacement cost of these five vehicles was approximately $2.3 million in 2025. However, the reserve fund balance totaled $971,000 as of Dec. 31, 2024. If all five vehicles at or beyond their useful life estimates were replaced in 2025, the district may face a shortfall of approximately $1.3 million. 

Because district officials did not maintain a long-term capital plan for vehicles or plan for future financial operations, the board’s ability to effectively manage the district’s finances was hindered. Therefore, potential large increases to real property tax levies may occur when assets are needed in the future. As a result of the audit, the board created a new capital plan that projected reserve contributions, vehicle replacement costs and useful life through 2054.

Richburg-Wirt Fire District – Board Oversight (Allegany County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. Specifically, the board did not develop and adopt required policies, including an investment policy, a procurement policy and a code of ethics. It did not use reserve funds in a transparent manner and could not support that transfers totaling $36,611 were adopted through board resolutions and that public hearings were held, when required. The board also did not audit the treasurer’s records or ensure all of its members completed mandatory oversight training within the required time period. 

In addition, the board did not use competitive bidding for the purchase of an off-road utility vehicle for approximately $28,000 as required, and may have paid more than necessary.

Town of Cherry Valley – Budget Review (Otsego County)

Auditors determined that the town’s preliminary budget significantly underbudgeted the appropriations for the Cherry Valley Community Health Center. Although all other significant revenues and appropriation estimates were considered reasonable and accurate, auditors identified long-term financial concerns regarding the lack of recurring revenues to fund recurring expenditures. 

The 2026 preliminary budget includes an estimate for health center appropriations of $495,000 in the general fund. Auditors’ projection of health center expenditures for 2025 is approximately $1 million. 

The board’s unrealistically low estimate for health center expenditures enabled the board to lower the town’s tax levy in the preliminary budget. However, without a source of additional revenues for the health center, the board could nearly deplete the town’s general fund resources by the end of 2026.

West Irondequoit Central School District – Emergency Drills (Monroe County)

During the school year, district officials must conduct a minimum of 12 evacuation and lockdown drills for each building and three bus drills for each bus to provide staff and students with the training necessary to respond appropriately in an emergency. 

District officials did not conduct all required bus drills and did not ensure all students participated in bus drills. Officials also did not file the required annual certification for bus drills or properly notify parents of drills as required in 2024-25. Without adequate emergency instruction and training, district officials cannot ensure that staff and students are prepared for emergencies. 

Additionally, without properly notifying parents in advance of building drills, parents may not have sufficient information to ask questions about procedures or be prepared to discuss the drills with their children.

Newark Valley Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Tioga County)

The review assessed the district’s progress in implementing the recommendations in the audit report, Newark Valley Fire District – Board Oversight (2020M-30). The audit determined that district officials, needed to improve controls over hall rentals, did not adopt an investment policy and update the procurement policy, retain documentation of quotes in compliance with the procurement policy, provide for an annual audit of the treasurer’s records and ensure that the treasurer filed its required annual financial information within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year. 

The audit included five recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s financial operations. Of those, two recommendations were implemented, one recommendation was partially implemented, and two recommendations were not implemented.

Hunter-Tannersville Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Greene County)

The review examined the district’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit report, Hunter-Tannersville Central School District – Network User Accounts and Information Technology Contingency Planning (2022M-125). The audit determined that district officials did not adequately manage or monitor nonstudent network user accounts or develop a written IT contingency plan. 

To help officials improve their controls over nonstudent network user accounts and be prepared for system disruptions, the audit included a public report that contained five recommendations and confidentially conveyed sensitive IT control weaknesses and recommendations. The district fully implemented all five recommendations contained in the public audit report, auditors determined. 

Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing the recommendations related to the sensitive IT control weaknesses, and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

Correction officer found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging unprofessional and threatening misconduct terminated from service

A County Department of Probation probation officer [Petitioner] was served three disciplinary charges alleging behavior that was "unbecoming an employee and/or constituted violations of the employer's workplace violence policy and anti-harassment policy". 

Following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer issued a report in which he found Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and recommended Petitioner's dismissal from service. The Director of the County Department of Probation [Director] adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner's employment.

Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Director's determination, which action was then transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804[g]. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision, observing that it was  supported by substantial evidence". 

The disciplinary charges against Petitioner essentially relate to three incidents, and extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing addressing each of them. 

The first incident involved a heated interview between Petitioner and one of the probationers he was supervising. Numerous witnesses testified that Petitioner commenced "yelling" at the probationer, accusing him of lying, barring him from leaving despite having no basis for doing so and eventually demanding to know whether he wanted "to take [it] outside". The proof submitted reflected that the interview became so contentious that others intervened to de-escalate the situation and separate the two individuals. The probationer was subsequently transferred to the caseload of another probation officer.

The second incident involved another probation officer who alleged Petitioner's behavior to be threatening and she filed a formal complaint against Petitioner with the agency's human resources office.

The testimony following a third incident, which involved Petitioner and a different probation officer, reported that the probation officer was "uncomfortable around [Petitioner] due to his prior behavior and decided to wait in her vehicle until he went inside'. The probation officer testified that when she finally got out of her car, "Petitioner also got out of his vehicle and waited for her by the stairs to the employee entrance" and another probation officer "was worried enough about what might happen next that she began recording audio on her phone, and that recording was entered into evidence at the hearing". 

The probation officer testified that she found the "incident so disturbing that she immediately reported it to her supervisor" and, like the probation officer who had been involved in the earlier incident, filed a formal complaint about it.

The Appellate Division opined that "Without belaboring the point further, this proof of [Petitioner's] unprofessional and threatening conduct" during these several incidents reflected that Petitioner "had engaged in conduct unbecoming a County employee in numerous respects".

Although Petitioner presented testimony that challenged aspects of the other witnesses' accounts and generally attempted to put his behavior in a more favorable light, the Hearing Officer indicated that he found Petitioner to be "wholly incredible in his testimony" and "credited the proof that [Petitioner] had engaged in extensive misconduct. 

The Appellate Division's decision concluded by noting Petitioner's "demonstrated pattern of unprofessional and aggressive behavior, for which he failed to accept any responsibility or indicate a willingness to modify in the future", and, citing Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 13 AD3d 851, and other Appellate Division decisions, held that the penalty of termination "was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness.".

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

New York State Departments and Agencies and other New York governmental entity audits posted on the Internet

On August 7, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

New York City Public Schools – College Readiness (Follow-Up) (2025-F-12)

Nearly half of all students who complete high school and go to college require remedial courses, and nearly half never graduate. In general, college readiness refers to the set of skills, behaviors, and knowledge a high school student should have before enrollment in their first year of college, as well as the ability for high school students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills required to successfully complete freshman-level college coursework. A prior audit, issued in October 2022, found that, overall, New York City Public Schools (NYCPS, formerly the New York City Department of Education) should do more to prepare students to be college ready regardless of the post-secondary pathway they decide to take, and this preparation should begin much earlier in students’ school years. Specifically, for a cohort of 71,210 high school students expected to graduate by August 2019, as many as 23% did not graduate on time. NYCPS officials have made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing all four recommendations.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Managed Care Provider Networks (2023-S-20)
Managed care organizations (MCOs) are required to submit their provider network to the Department of Health (DOH) quarterly, and this information is used to generate a deficiency report identifying areas where the MCO lacks enough providers in certain counties. MCOs are given an opportunity to dispute deficiencies and provide supporting information to have the deficiency removed and the remaining deficiencies are compiled into a quarterly Statement of Agreement for each MCO. Auditors determined that, in many instances, DOH did not follow its internal review guidance, Statements of Agreement contained inaccurate deficiencies, and deficiency statuses were not always updated, so it was unclear whether DOH took the additional steps needed to complete its quarterly network adequacy review. Auditors also found that DOH does not provide MCOs with adequate guidance regarding the deficiency review process or out-of-network provider payments, which may expose the Medicaid program to increased expenses. Further, despite having access to the Statement of Agreement data, DOH officials do not use this information to identify patterns or areas for improvement or to provide any other oversight of the network adequacy process.

Transforming Into Construction & Development (2023-S-49)
The Public Authorities Law required the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to “develop and complete a personnel and reorganization plan” by June 30, 2019. According to the Transformation plan adopted by the MTA Board on July 24, 2019, “the MTA’s transformation seeks to change the fundamental ways in which the Agencies do business in order to drive improved service levels for the customers, process efficiencies and cost reductions.” At the December 2019 Board Meeting, MTA Capital Construction was renamed and reorganized to Construction & Development Company (C&D). Auditors found that, although C&D provided evidence that it had been organizationally transformed, sufficient time had not passed to comprehensively assess whether the change delivered capital projects faster, better, or cheaper, as was its plan. The data that was available was at times incomplete or insufficiently supported, and a definition of what constituted cost savings was not clearly defined and included some questionable items.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Payments for Certain Third-Party Cost-Sharing Claims (2024-S-1)
When Medicaid members have other sources of health care coverage (third-party insurers), Medicaid is considered the payer of last resort and, as such, providers are required to coordinate benefits with third-party insurers before billing Medicaid for services. After processing a claim from a provider, the third-party insurer issues a statement to the provider, explaining the reason for any adjustments made to the claim amount. Claim Adjustment Reason Codes (CARCs) and group codes (such as PR, patient responsibility, and CO, contractual obligation) on statements detail the reason an adjustment was made to a claim and assign financial responsibility for the unpaid portion of the claim balance. CARC 45 occurs when the charge exceeds the maximum allowable fee and claims with a CARC PR 45 are currently configured to pay in eMedNY (DOH’s automated Medicaid claims processing and payment system), while claims with a CARC CO 45 are not. Auditors identified 69,166 claims totaling payments of almost $10.2 million billed with a PR 45. They sampled 58 of these claims billed with a PR 45 and identified billing issues on each claim that resulted in Medicaid overpayments of $1,778,546.

New York City Department of Social Services – New York City Department of Homeless Services: Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Institute for Community Living, Inc. (Follow-Up) (2025-F-16)
In March 2014, the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), an administrative unit of the New York City Department of Social Services, contracted with the Institute for Community Living, Inc. (ICL), a City-based not-for-profit organization, to provide temporary housing and other services at its 200-bed Tillary Street Women’s Shelter for the period from December 2013 to December 2021. A prior audit, issued in September 2022, found DHS did not complete required expenditure reviews or ensure that year-end closeouts were completed in a timely manner. Consequently, for the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, auditors identified $2,376,462, or 9.7% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements. DHS officials made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s nine audit recommendations, one was implemented, five were partially implemented, and three were not implemented.

Office of Mental Health – Oversight of Kendra’s Law (Follow-Up) (2025-F-6)
In August 1999, Kendra’s Law was enacted, creating a statutory framework for court-ordered Assisted Outpatient Treatment to ensure that individuals with severe mental illness and a history of hospitalizations or violence participate in community-based services appropriate to their needs. Assisted Outpatient Treatment implementation is a joint responsibility and collaboration among the Office of Mental Health (OMH), its five regional Field Offices, and local mental health authorities in 57 counties and New York City. A prior audit, issued in February 2024, found areas in need of improvement, including length of Assisted Outpatient Treatment investigations and related information-sharing, initiation of Assisted Outpatient Treatment services, the quality and completeness of information about significant events and how that information is shared, lapsing Assisted Outpatient Treatment orders, and local mental health authorities’ reported reasons for Assisted Outpatient Treatment non-renewals. OMH officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the report’s six recommendations, three have been implemented, two have been partially implemented, and one has not been implemented.

 

Appellate Division finds termination of educator from employment to be reasonable under the circumstances

Supreme Court rejected Plaintiff's petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award which resulted in the termination of Plaintiff's employment by Department of Education of the City of New York [Respondent] and granted Respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the arbitrator's determination that Plaintiff's teaching performance was deficient during the relevant three-year period, that it was supported by adequate evidence, which included the testimony of school administrators and documentation. 

Finding that the determination was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious the Appellate Divisions' decision noted that the record included written observational reports and testimony from school administrators and an independent peer evaluator demonstrating Plaintiff's inadequate teaching, Respondent's efforts at remediation, and Plaintiff's lack of improvement over the three-year period. 

The Court opined that the evidence "showed that [Plaintiff] was "unwilling or unable to implement suggestions" despite substantial professional development opportunities.

Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, the Appellate Division concluded that under the circumstances, termination was "not shocking to one's sense of fairness".

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

Government and school audits issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

On October 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

Port Ewen Fire District – Financial Management (Ulster County) The board and officials did not properly manage the district’s financial operations, including ensuring that the district treasurer maintained adequate accounting records. In addition, the board did not annually review the district’s investment policy and seek legal investment options that align with the district’s investment needs and benefit taxpayers and which may have resulted in greater investment earnings. For example, the district’s investment earnings totaled $968, but had officials solicited interest rate quotes and considered other investment options, they may have realized investment earnings ranging between approximately $42,000 and $51,000.

Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Audit Follow-Up (Schenectady County) A previous audit, Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Board Oversight (2021M-185), determined that the company’s board did not develop financial procedures for collections and disbursements, periodically monitor the budget or ensure the constitution (bylaws) were followed.  The audit included eight recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the company’s financial operations. Although the board and company officials were aware of the prior audit, were familiar with the recommendations and conveyed in the company’s corrective action plan what actions they would take to implement the audit’s recommendations, the board and company officials did not implement any of the audit’s recommendations.

Montrose Fire District – Claims Auditing (Westchester County) Auditors reviewed 166 claims totaling $712,696 and determined that the board did not properly audit 78 claims totaling $47,836. For example, the board approved 21 claims totaling $23,789 without documentation indicating that the services outlined in the rental agreement were rendered and 13 claims that included sales tax totaling $228. District officials told auditors they were aware that sales taxes were paid on certain purchases and have taken measures to ensure sales taxes are not paid going forward. In addition, the board approved 42 out of 60 credit card claims totaling $5,117 without adequate supporting documentation that purchases were for legitimate district purposes. These claims included purchases totaling $484 made through an online payment system and at a local coffee chain. Although officials claimed that the purchases were fraudulent, they did not provide documentation to support that fraud claims were filed with the bank to dispute the charges. By not properly auditing claims, the board’s ability to effectively monitor district financial operations is diminished, and errors and irregularities may continue to occur and remain undetected and uncorrected.

Franklin Square Union Free School District – Website Transparency (Nassau County) District officials did not ensure the district’s website provided the public with transparent and comprehensive financial and administrative information. As a result, the community and other interested parties could not readily access and review district information to make informed decisions.

North Salem Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Westchester County) A previous audit – North Salem Central School District Network User Accounts (2022M-140) – determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit included three recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s monitoring of network user accounts. Of the three audit recommendations, district officials, the IT director and IT staff fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented two recommendations. Recommendations related to sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to district officials.

Key elements of the Court of Appeals' decision addressing the Even Year Election Law (Laws of 2023, Chapter 741) to consolidate certain elections for county and town offices with even year elections for state and federal offices.

In 2023, the Legislature enacted the Even Year Election Law (Laws of 2023, Chapter 741) to consolidate certain elections for county and town offices with even year elections for state and federal offices. The Plaintiffs, including several counties with charter provisions setting local elections for odd-numbered years, challenge the constitutionality of the Even Year Election Law, claiming the statute violates the home rule provisions of Article IX of the State Constitution. 

The Court of Appels held that "there is no express or implied constitutional limitation on the legislature's authority to enact the Even Year Election Law" [hereinafter EYEL] and affirmed the ruling of the Appellate Division.

[*1]County of Onondaga, et al., Appellants,

v

State of New York, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Other Actions.)

Decided on October 16, 2025

No. 66

In the words of the court: 

"The issue for this Court is whether article IX limits the power of the legislature in such a way as to make the EYEL an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority. We conclude that it does not.

"Plaintiffs first challenge the constitutionality of the statute under section 1, arguing that, because of the rights detailed in section 1 as implemented by the Municipal Home Rule Law, counties have a constitutional right to set the timing of county elections and terms of office. In other words, because counties are authorized to adopt alternative forms of government (NY Const, art IX, §1 [h] [1], and because those counties that do so are instructed by the Municipal Home Rule Law to provide for 'the manner of election' and 'terms of office' of its officials in those charters (Municipal Home Rule Law §33 [3] [b]), that statutory instruction from the Municipal Home Rule Law is transformed into a constitutional right barring the legislature from interfering with the manner of election or terms of office for local officials. Nothing in the text of these provisions, or in our jurisprudence, supports that view. Indeed, only the right to form an alternative form of government is guaranteed by section 1 (h) (1), that right does not implicitly include a right to set terms of office or timing of elections, and the authority delegated to local governments in the Municipal Home Rule Law is statutory. Nothing in the EYEL infringes the rights provided by article IX's 'bill of rights.'

"Next, plaintiffs argue that the EYEL is unconstitutional under article IX, section 2 (b) (2) because the legislature is only empowered to act in this manner pursuant to general law or a duly enacted special law and, in their view, the EYEL is neither. This is incorrect. As defined by article IX, §3 (d) (1), a general law is one 'which in terms and in effect applies alike to all counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all towns or all villages.' This Court has long held that a statute remains a general law where it is 'cast in general terms' but affects a smaller category of counties, and is "no less general because it classifies the [counties] affected on the basis of population or some other condition and extends its benefits only to" certain counties, so long as 'the classification be defined by conditions common to the class and related to the subject of the statute' (Uniformed Firefighters Assn. v City of New York, 50 NY2d 85, 90 [1980]; see also Rozler v Franger, 61 AD2d 46, 51 [4th Dept 1978], affd 46 NY2d 760 [1978] [that Village Law exempts chartered villages does not 'make it any less a general law,' because the 'exception . . . is based on a reasonable classification and the law applies uniformly to all other villages throughout the state']). The EYEL, as the Appellate Division held, is a general law because it applies to all counties, with reasonable exceptions, and has an equal impact on a 'rationally defined class similarly situated' (238 AD3d at 1540-1541 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N.Y., 46 NY2d 358, 373 [1978] [where a law 'has an equal impact on all members of a rationally defined class similarly situated, the law is thus a general' law]). While the EYEL contains exemptions, its terms are general, and the category of counties and offices it affects is defined by common conditions and related to the statute's purpose.

"Finally, plaintiffs challenge the EYEL on the basis that it runs afoul of the clause in article IX, §3 (b), which provides that the provisions of article IX 'shall not affect any existing valid provisions of acts of the legislature or of local legislation.' This language simply made clear, as the Appellate Division held, that existing local laws remained in force following the adoption of article IX, and expressly accounts for change through legislative action by stating that existing local provisions continue 'in force until repealed, amended, modified or superseded' (see 238 AD3d at 1541 [article IX, §3 'clarifies that the adoption of Article IX did not itself invalidate then-existing legislation . . . and does not preclude the Legislature from adopting a law such as the EYEL']).

"Nothing in article IX limits, expressly or by implication, the otherwise plenary authority of the legislature to mandate the timing of certain elections, as the EYEL does (see Matter of Burr v Voorhis, 229 NY 382, 388 [1920] ([T)he legislature is free to adopt concerning (voting) any reasonable, uniform and just regulations which are in harmony with constitutional provisions"]). Consequently, without any such constitutional limitation, the EYEL is a proper exercise of that authority.

"The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

"Opinion by Judge Garcia. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur."

Footnotes

Footnote 1: The EYEL exempts offices whose terms are specified in the Constitution, offices for which elections must occur in odd numbered years pursuant to the Constitution, offices with a three-year term before January 1, 2025, offices in towns coterminous with villages, and offices in counties located in New York City (L 2023, ch 741, §§ 1-4; see also NY Const, art XIII, §§ 8, 10, 12, 13, 17).

Footnote 2: Individual voter plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the EYEL's consolidation of local elections with even-year elections "increases the burdens associated with casting a vote, fundraising, and generating support for candidates, among other essential campaigning activities, while contributing to voter fatigue due to higher numbers of issues and/or candidates on the ballot" and that "[w]ith more candidates on the ballot and higher turnout numbers, voters will face longer ballots, longer voting lines, voter fatigue, and 'ballot drop-off' or 'roll-off.' " These are not traditional voter suppression claims.

Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.