New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

Audit reports for the following local governments and school districts were posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller on April 14, 2026.New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026 

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the reports posted on the Internet.

City of Mechanicville – Separation Payments (Saratoga County) City officials did not ensure the accuracy of employee separation payments. As a result, three employees received questionable or unsupported payments totaling $15,766 of vacation payouts due to miscalculations and an ineligible retirement incentive. Specifically, auditors determined that three payments totaling $37,118 were inconsistent with the city’s handbook and collective bargaining agreements, which may have resulted in the overpayments. Auditors also found that officials did not have adequate policies or written procedures in place to guide how separation payments should be calculated, approved and reviewed.

City of Mechanicville – Procurement (Saratoga County) Auditors found that officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with policy, statutory requirements or good business practices. Officials made purchases without proper oversight, did not maintain records and did not consistently use a competitive process. Of the sample of 35 purchases totaling $2.26 million reviewed, auditors identified 24 purchases totaling approximately $760,000 that did not comply with the procurement policy or statutory requirements. While the city’s procurement policy was inadequate and inconsistent, it did require department heads to verify that funds were available before making purchases. However, the finance office did not have updated accounting records. Consequently, department heads made purchases without confirming there were available budget appropriations, which led to financial discrepancies and inefficiencies.

City of Mechanicville – Financial Oversight (Saratoga County) The mayor and city officials did not provide oversight of financial operations. As a result, the council could not fully assess the city’s financial condition or make informed decisions. The commissioner did not maintain current accounting records or ensure financial reports were accurate. Bank reconciliations were either not completed or contained large, unresolved variances. Also, the commissioner did not submit two years of annual financial reports (AFRs) to DiNapoli’s office in a timely manner, as required by law. The mayor also did not establish formal procedures to monitor financial reporting or verify the accuracy of accounting records.

Village of Sherburne – Budgeting (Chenango County) The board adopted budgets that underestimated revenues in the general fund and overestimated appropriations in the general, water and sewer funds. As a result, the board levied more taxes than were needed to fund the village’s operations. The board also generated unplanned operating surpluses totaling approximately $1.1 million despite having planned for operating deficits totaling $1.3 million. As a result, none of the appropriated fund balance was needed or used. In addition, the unrestricted fund balance increased by approximately $1.1 million in the general, water and sewer funds. Lastly, the budgets for the 2022-23 through 2025-26 fiscal years did not comply with state law or guidance from DiNapoli’s office and lacked sufficient detail, which reduced transparency and limited effective financial planning.

Village of Victory – Records and Reports (Saratoga County) The clerk-treasurer did not maintain accurate and complete accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly reports or file AFRs in a timely manner, which limited the board’s ability to monitor financial operations. The clerk-treasurer also did not properly prepare bank reconciliations or budget status reports, which lacked pertinent information. As of Sept. 10, 2025, AFRs were filed between 41 and 1,322 days late.

Village of Youngstown – Employee Benefits and Payroll (Niagara County) Village officials did not maintain accurate leave records or ensure payroll payments were properly approved and supported. Employees received payouts and used leave without proper authorization, including $9,802 in unsupported payments, 1,524 unapproved leave hours and 313 compensatory hours accrued without authorization. In addition, village officials made inaccurate payroll payments totaling approximately $2,500.

Village of Churchville – Procurement (Monroe County) Village officials did not consistently solicit competition in accordance with statutory requirements or its procurement policy. Of the approximately $1.4 million in goods and services reviewed, auditors determined officials did not seek competition for purchases totaling $664,748. Specifically, village officials did not always issue requests for proposals, ensure the village received the New York State Office of General Services contract price in lieu of competitively bidding, or obtain the minimum number of written quotes required by the village’s procurement policy. For two purchases totaling $31,397, officials did not obtain any written quotes. In addition, the village’s procurement policy did not include details on when board approval was required prior to making purchases, and officials signed and approved their own purchases.

Plainville Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Onondaga County) The review assessed the Plainville Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Plainville Fire District – Board Oversight, released in October 2021. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations and exceeded its authority by allowing the district treasurer to pay all recurring expenditures without the board’s prior review or approval. To help the board ensure that it provides adequate oversight of fire district operations, the audit contained eight recommendations. The board fully implemented four recommendations, partially implemented three and did not implement one. Until all recommendations are addressed, the board cannot ensure district assets are appropriately safeguarded.

South Orangetown Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Rockland County) The review assessed the South Orangetown Central School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, South Orangetown Central School District – Network User Accounts, released in August 2022. The audit determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit report contained four recommendations. While district officials fully implemented one recommendation, they only partially implemented the remaining three recommendations. As a result, the district’s network continued to have increased risk for unauthorized access, misuse or data loss.

Woodbourne Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Sullivan County) The review assessed the Woodbourne Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Woodbourne Fire District – Board Oversight, released in December 2023. The audit determined that the board and treasurer did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. The audit contained 10 recommendations. The district fully implemented three recommendations, partially implemented four, and did not implement three recommendations. Until all are addressed, the board cannot ensure financial operations are properly monitored or assets are safeguarded.

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete List of Fiscal Stress Scores
Data Files

FSMS Search Tool
Tool

AFR Non-Filers
Webpage Tracker Tool

New York State Comptroller releases local government audits

On March 19, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the local government audits described below.

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

Village of Asharoken – Claims Audit and Treasurer’s Duties (Suffolk County)  Auditors found the board did not always conduct a thorough audit of individual claims for non-payroll disbursements because supporting documentation was not consistently included with claims submitted for review. Of the 232 disbursements totaling $877,625 reviewed, 51 disbursements totaling $69,707 were not properly audited due to missing invoices, unsigned vouchers, late fees and claims that showed no evidence of board review. Auditors also found that some payments were withdrawn directly from the village’s bank account without being audited by the board.

Town of Gorham – Distribution of Foreign Fire Insurance Tax Proceeds (Ontario County)  Town officials did not properly distribute the 2023 and 2024 Foreign Fire Insurance tax proceeds in accordance with state law and relevant case law. The bookkeeper incorrectly calculated the allocation by using an inaccurate formula that included the fire district and based the distribution on contract payments and budgeted appropriations rather than the number of active members in the fire companies. Auditors determined that the fire district should not have been included in the calculation and that the proceeds should have been distributed based on a pro-rata formula using active membership totals. As a result, one fire department received $681 more than its share, another received $4,076 less than its share and the fire district improperly received $3,395. In addition, town officials did not review the allocation calculations to ensure the funds were accurately distributed.

Fairview Fire District – Procurement and Claims Audit (Dutchess County)  The board and district officials did not always procure goods and services in a cost-effective manner or ensure claims were properly audited for accuracy and completeness. As a result, officials could not support the district procuring a $1.2 million ladder truck in the most cost-effective manner and did not pursue competition or document the competitive process for 11 purchases totaling $178,347 out of 18 purchases totaling $414,458. In addition, officials did not effectively audit 50 claims totaling $124,600, made 15 purchases totaling $5,784 that were not appropriate because they were gifts and did not approve reimbursement payments to 27 employees totaling $19,419.

Preston Fire District – Board Oversight (Chenango County)  The board did not provide proper oversight of the district’s financial activities. The board did not adopt an investment policy, correctly monitor investments, establish a procurement policy, effectively audit claims, annually audit the treasurer’s records or ensure the district’s annual financial reports were filed in a timely manner. Although the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid, officials maintained the capital reserve fund in a savings account earning 0.02% interest and realized only $125 in earnings during the three completed fiscal years of the audit period. If officials invested in an alternative permissible investment, such as treasury bills with an average interest rate of 3.89%, the district could have realized approximately $26,000 in additional earnings during the same period.

Town of Ridgeway – Health Insurance Benefits (Orleans County)  Auditors found the board did not properly authorize or monitor health insurance benefits provided to current and former officials. Because internal controls and oversight were not established, the supervisor did not ensure officials were eligible to receive post-employment health insurance benefits or that required premium contributions were paid to the town. As a result, the town incurred $236,885 more for health insurance premiums than it should have during the audit period, representing approximately 34% of the town’s total health insurance premiums over the seven-year period. In addition, the supervisor did not ensure certain former officials were eligible for benefits, resulting in $179,325 in unauthorized payments, and did not collect $52,659 in required premium contributions owed to the town.

Middlesex Fire District – Procurement (Yates County)  District officials did not ensure that goods and services were procured in an economical manner. These deficiencies occurred because officials did not follow the procurement policy adopted by the board of fire commissioners or demonstrate that the emergency exception to competitive bidding applied when purchasing a new tanker truck. As a result, officials did not competitively bid and awarded a contract valued at $564,065 to purchase the tanker truck. In addition, officials did not seek competition by obtaining verbal or written quotes for 14 purchases totaling $82,727, which reduced assurance that purchases were made in the most prudent and economical manner and in the district’s best interest.

Middlesex Fire District – Fiscal Transparency (Yates County)  The treasurer prepared and provided monthly and annual financial reports to the board. However, the treasurer did not prepare and file the district’s annual financial reports with the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) in a timely manner for fiscal years 2018 through 2024. The treasurer indicated that the former treasurer’s records were disorganized and incomplete and that she did not initially have access to the OSC’s online portal to file the reports.

Town of Marathon – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Cortland County)  The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the 2023 and 2024 annual financial reports with OSC and did not provide the board with complete monthly financial reports. The supervisor also did not properly maintain accounting records, record the dates cash receipts were collected or properly reconcile bank accounts and cash records.

Town of Coventry – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Chenango County)  The board did not conduct or provide for an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024 in accordance with state law. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the town’s annual financial reports for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 with OSC and did not provide the board with sufficient financial information to monitor the town’s fiscal activities. Auditors also found that the supervisor did not ensure debit card purchases were approved by the board, review payroll reports or provide the board with monthly budget status reports.

###

Appellate Division rejects claim that adding age to New York State's Equal Rights Amendment nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for New York State judges and justices

In November 2024, New York State voters in the general election approved the Equal Rights Amendment [ERA], which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set out in Article I, §11(a) of the State Constitution. 

Petitioners in this action are three current or former New York State court justices who turned 70 or 76 years of age in 2025 and are therefore subject to mandatory retirement or to the "certification process" in order to continue to serve as New York State court justices. 

The Petitioners contended that the amendment to New York State's ERA nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for New York State court judges and justices when it added "age" to the list of protected categories set forth in Article I, §11(a) of the State Constitution. 

The Appellate Division disagreed, opining that "The plain language of the ERA does not support [Petitioners'] contention that article VI, §25(b), the mandatory judicial retirement provision, has been implicitly repealed, as the ERA contains no reference to Article VI, the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age". 

Rejecting the Petitioners' reliance on the "well-established exception . . . that a subsequent general statute will repeal a prior special law relating to the same subject where inconsistency exists and the Legislature's intent to effect such a repeal is manifest" [emphasis in the decision], the Appellate Division set out two reasons for rejecting Petitioners' arguments:

1. "... in contrast to the examples cited by petitioners, the ERA addresses a different subject matter from the provision petitioners seek to have declared nullified; and

2. "[Petitioners] cannot show that the legislature or the voters intended for the ERA to repeal article VI, §25(b)".

The Appellate Division noted that almost immediately after the ERA's changes became effective on January 1, 2025, new legislation proposing amendments that would raise the Article VI, §25(b) judicial retirement age was introduced in January 2025 and April 2025 in New York State's Assembly and Senate respectively, "suggesting that the drafters of the ERA did not, in fact, contemplate raising the judicial retirement age, but rather intended to address that issue separately."

In addition, citing Alweis v Evans, 69 NY2d 199, the Appellate Division pointed out "[r]epeal by implication is distinctly not favored in the law",  observing that implicit repeal requires that the repugnancy between two laws "be so palpable that upon reading the two acts together it is obvious, without the aid of elaborate argument, that both could not have been intended to remain in force at the same time".

The text of the Appellate Division's ruling is set out below:

Matter of Miller v State of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 01409

Decided on March 12, 2026

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: March 12, 2026
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.

Index No. 163102/25|Appeal No. 6084|Case No. 2025-07659|

[*1]In the Matter of Robert J. Miller et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

The State of New York et al., Respondents/Defendants-Respondents, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation. Amicus Curiae.

Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Y. David Scharf of counsel), for appellants.

David Nocenti, Office of Court Administration, New York (Pedro Morales of counsel), for New York Office of Court Administration, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Ester Murdukhayeva of counsel), for State of New York, respondent.

New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York (Jessica Perry of counsel), amicus curiae.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered December 1, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross-motion of respondent The State of New York to dismiss the petition-complaint seeking a judgment declaring that the 2024 amendment to article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution rendered null and void the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices of the New York State Courts set forth in article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution and that the application of Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 violates article I, § 11 of the State Constitution, and seeking an injunction barring respondents from requiring petitioners to retire or be denied certification for service, and dismissed this hybrid proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR articles 30, 63, and 78, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant judgment to respondents to the extent of declaring that article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution has not been repealed and that Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 are not unconstitutional, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In November 2024, New York State voters in the general election approved the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set forth in article I, § 11(a) of the State Constitution. Petitioners are three current or former state court justices who turned 70 or 76 years old in 2025 and are therefore subject to mandatory retirement or the certification process. They commenced the instant proceeding contending that the ERA nullified the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges and justices when it added "age" to the list of protected categories set forth in article I, § 11(a). We disagree.

The guiding principle in the interpretation of a written constitution is to give effect to the plain language of the document (Matter of King v Cuomo, 81 NY2d 247, 253 [1993]). It has long been settled that "an amended constitution must be read as a whole, and as if every part had been adopted at the same time and as one law, and effect must be given to every part of it, each clause explained and qualified by every other part" (People ex rel. Killeen v Angle, 109 NY 564, 575 [1888] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, courts are obliged to reconcile "seemingly conflicting provisions of the Constitution without doing violence to either" (McMahon v Michaelian, 38 AD2d 60, 62 [1st Dept 1971], affd 30 NY2d 507 [1972]; see Matter of Burger King v State Tax Commn., 51 NY2d 614, 620-621 [1980]).

The plain language of the ERA does not support petitioners' contention that article VI, § 25(b), the mandatory judicial retirement provision, has been implicitly repealed, as the ERA contains no reference to article VI, the eligibility of persons to serve as judges or justices, or the judicial retirement age (see NY Const art I, § 11[a]; see also Matter of King, 81 NY2d at 253). For two reasons, we reject petitioners' reliance on the "well-established exception . . . that a subsequent general statute will repeal a prior special law relating to the same subject where inconsistency exists and the Legislature's intent to effect such a repeal is manifest" (Gerry v Volger, 252 AD 217, 219 [4th Dept 1937] [emphasis added]).

First, in contrast to the examples cited by petitioners, the ERA addresses a different subject matter from the provision petitioners seek to have declared nullified (see Gerry, 252 AD at 218 [statutory change to statewide jury duty qualification implicitly amended statute regarding jury duty in specific counties]; see also US Const 14th amend, § 2 [changing calculation for apportioning representatives from prior method found in article I, former § 2, clause 3]; US Const 17th amend [changing method of selecting United States Senators found in article I, former § 3, clause 1]; Moore v United States, 602 US 572, 582-583 [2024], quoting US Const 16th amend [noting repeal of limitation that taxation of income from real property be evenly apportioned among the states by article I, former § 2, clause 3 and article I, § 8]).

Second, petitioners cannot show that the legislature or the voters intended for the ERA to repeal article VI, § 25(b). On the contrary, almost immediately after the ERA's changes became effective on January 1, 2025, new legislation seeking to propose amendments that would raise the article VI, § 25(b) judicial retirement age was introduced in January 2025 and April 2025 in the Assembly and Senate, respectively, suggesting that the drafters of the ERA did not, in fact, contemplate raising the judicial retirement age, but rather intended to address that issue separately (see Assembly Bills A 3756, A 3757 [2025]; Senate Bill S 7455 [2025]). Similarly, a proposed amendment with this same provision failed in the 2013 general election. The sponsors of the ERA bill focused instead on enshrining comprehensive protections from discrimination given the changing national legal landscape endangering abortion rights, rights for the disabled and pregnant, and rights based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

In addition, "[r]epeal by implication is distinctly not favored in the law" (Alweis v Evans, 69 NY2d 199, 204 [1987]). Implicit repeal requires that the repugnancy between two laws "be so palpable that upon reading the two acts together it is obvious, without the aid of elaborate argument, that both could not have been intended to remain in force at the same time" (Pines v State of New York, 115 AD3d 80, 98 [2d Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 23 NY3d 982 [2014], quoting Matter of Tiffany, 179 NY 455, 457 [1904]). Because there is no support for petitioners' position within the ERA's legislative history, their cause of action asserting an implicit repeal necessarily fails. It follows that petitioners cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115, which implement article VI, § 25(b) faithfully, are unconstitutional (Matter of McGee v Korman, 70 NY2d 225, 231 [1987]; see Stefanik v Hochul, 43 NY3d 49, 57 [2024]).

We decline to reach the issues of whether the ERA made the Civil Rights Clause of article I, § 11 self-executing, or whether strict scrutiny applies to age-based statutory classifications, as these issues are academic in light of our determination.

Finally, Supreme Court erred in dismissing petitioners' first three causes of action seeking declaratory relief upon a finding that they were not entitled to the declaration sought. Instead, the proper course was to issue a declaration in respondents' favor (Gourin v 72A Realty Assoc., L.P., 226 AD3d 475, 477 [1st Dept 2024]).

We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 12, 2026

Audits of State Department and Agencies posted on the Internet by NYS Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

On February 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following State Government Accountability audits had been released:

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

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Health Homes (2023-S-8)
The Health Home Program, implemented in New York in January 2012, is an optional benefit under the Medicaid State Plan that provides care coordination and case management to certain Medicaid members with chronic health problems.

The Department of Health (DOH) administers New York’s Medicaid program and is responsible for overseeing the program and ensuring Health Home providers comply with federal and State statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and achieve intended results. Auditors found DOH had not consistently followed its monitoring and oversight guidelines for Health Homes to ensure effective delivery of services, nor had it used all available data and measurements to assess the program’s value and effectiveness. Additionally, Health Homes lacked compliance with program policies and procedures, and certain payments made to Health Homes lacked the required support.

Natural Heritage Trust – Security Over Critical Systems (2025-S-25)
The Natural Heritage Trust’s (NHT) mission is to receive and administer gifts, grants, devises, and bequests of real and personal property to further conservation, outdoor recreation, historic preservation, and waterfront and community revitalization. NHT issued its own stand-alone, vendor-hosted website in June 2021 to enhance the user and administrator experience and utilizes a fundraising database to track donor and donation information. Additionally, NHT uses customized donation forms on its website.

Auditors identified areas including governance over Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard requirements and security controls that NHT could improve to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data. Due to the confidential nature of the audit findings, their details, along with four recommendations, were communicated in a separate, confidential report to NHT officials for their review and comment.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Charles R. Drew Early Childhood Center, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2024-S-19)
The Charles R. Drew Early Childhood Center, Inc. (Charles R. Drew) is a New York City-based not-for-profit organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Special Class and full-day Integrated Special Class to children with disabilities who are between the ages of three and five years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2020, Charles R. Drew reported approximately $3.2 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $536,185 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Office of Children and Family Services – Oversight of Juvenile Justice Facilities (Follow-Up) (2025-F-15)
The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), through its Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth (DJJOY), is responsible for the operation and oversight of nine State-run residential juvenile justice facilities that serve court-placed youth. A prior audit, issued in April 2024, found weaknesses in several aspects of OCFS’ operation of its juvenile justice facilities. Specifically, OCFS had not ensured that certain admission assessments and screenings, including health-related assessments, were completed and documented as required or were done within the required time frames, creating the risk of missed or delayed opportunities to identify or provide care for physical health conditions or mental health concerns youth may have when admitted to DJJOY facilities. Further, OCFS did not ensure that all direct care staff were current with the training to be authorized to restrain youth. OCFS implemented both of the audit recommendations from the initial report.

DiNapoli also announced the release of the following Bureau of State Expenditures audits:

Department of Transportation - Payments to WSP USA Inc.
Auditors examined a sample of expenses from the 11 vouchers totaling $10.8 million the Department certified as appropriate and paid to WSP from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023. Auditors found the Department approved for payment 1,890 labor hours totaling $107,040 where the documentation did not support the amounts billed. Additionally, the Department paid three claims during our examination period for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance totaling $16,659 even though WSP is contractually required to maintain this policy at its own expense. 

Department of Health - Payments Pursuant to the Creating Healthy Schools and Communities Program Auditors found inappropriate contractual service and program material expenses. One grantee's subcontractor inappropriately requested specific invoice dates for items totaling $28,664 so the expenses would appear to have been incurred in the previous budget year of the contract, when they in fact were not. Manipulating the invoice dates yielded an overstatement of expenses incurred in the previous budget year, freeing up $28,664 from the current budget year for additional expenses. As a result, this $28,664 payment to the grantee was inappropriate. Auditors also determined that these items could have been purchased directly by the grantee and its subcontractor, rather than through a third party, which resulted in an unnecessary $3,413 expense. The Department also certified that a sample of salary expenses paid to four CHSC grantees were just, true, and correct without obtaining sufficient source documentation from the respective grantees. As a result, the Department approved $100,399 in salary expenses with insufficient documentation.

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services - Payments to Tidal Basin Government Consulting LLC
The contract required Tidal Basin to submit staffing and travel plans for the deployment of consultants. Despite this requirement, the Division could not produce these plans, and the auditors found that the Division's invoice reviewers did not compare the invoices to the plans to ensure the expenses were authorized. As a result, the Division inappropriately certified to the Comptroller’s Office that the $24.1 million paid during the examination period was appropriate without reviewing the approved staffing and travel plans to support that the expenses were authorized by the Division. In addition, the Division certified the travel expenses were appropriate without determining whether consultants were due travel reimbursement. Auditors also found that the Division paid Tidal Basin $11,968 for travel expenses that did not comply with requirements. Lastly, the Division approved 28 vouchers totaling $8.3 million without documenting which charges on the associated invoices were just, true, correct, and appropriate to pay. Auditors faced significant delays, upwards of seven months, in obtaining the necessary documentation from the Division. At one point, auditors paused interviews after actions taken by a Division representative during an interview required executive involvement from both OSC and the Division to resolve. 

###

The Employee Benefit Research Institute's Sixth Annual Workplace Wellness Survey posted on the Internet

The Employee Benefit Research Institute's sixth Annual Workplace Wellness Survey finds workers value balance and benefits, but disengagement persists as inflation and health costs remain top worries.

While American workers report easing concerns about their personal finances compared with recent years, worries about overall well-being are on the rise according to findings from the Sixth Annual Workplace Wellness Survey, released on February 9, 2026, by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald Research. Inflation and health care costs continue to be the most significant sources of concern for workers.

The survey finds that although a majority of workers are satisfied with their jobs and value work-life balance, many feel disengaged and uncertain about the economy, health care affordability and long-term security.

The Sixth Annual Workplace Wellness Survey examined worker attitudes toward employment-based benefits in the workplace, as well as a broad spectrum of financial and mental well-being, employment-based health insurance and retirement benefit issues. A total of 1,401 American full-time and part-time workers ages 21–64 were interviewed. Information was gathered through 20-minute online survey interviews conducted from July 18–August 5, 2025.

“Even as workers tell us their personal financial stress has eased compared with a few years ago, inflation and health care costs remain persistent pressure points—and that strain is showing up in rising concerns about overall well-being. The results suggest employers have an opportunity to strengthen engagement by pairing competitive benefits with greater flexibility and support that helps people feel more secure,” said Jake Spiegel, senior research associate, EBRI.

Key findings in the new research report include:

• Concerns about physical, mental and workplace well-being have climbed slightly, but financial well-being concerns have eased since 2022. Concern about physical, mental and workplace well-being was slightly higher in 2025, with workers rating their level of concern an average of 5.8 out of 10. Additionally, there was a general trend of concern about financial well-being decreasing, with financial well-being concerns dropping from 6.9 to 6.3 between 2022 and 2025. Concerns about the economy going into a recession impacting finances in the next 12 months was the same as 2024 (80%), but 40% said the U.S. economy is currently in a recession. Inflation (89%), the cost of health care (87%) and the cost of health insurance (86%) are other top concerns for American workers.
 
• Fifty-six percent of workers were very or extremely satisfied with their current job, with only 13% expressing dissatisfaction. About 66% of the workers reported that their employers’ efforts to help employees manage their overall well-being has stayed the same, with 23% saying efforts have increased. Just over one-third rated their employer highly in improving their financial well-being. Work-life balance (53%) and doing meaningful work (42%) contributed most to workers’ sense of workplace well-being. 

• Work-life balance continues to be valued by American workers. Over half (53%) of the workers indicated that work-life balance is one of the top three benefits valued most, outside of income and compensation. Eight in 10 workers were at least somewhat satisfied with the PTO benefits they get at work. While paid vacation and paid sick time were still the PTO benefits offered most frequently, paid volunteer time (24%), paid sabbatical (20%), child care (20%) and elder care assistance (14%) all increased in 2025.

• Workers reported similar satisfaction with their benefits package as in prior years, with top suggestions for improvement being a greater employer contribution and more flexibility of benefits to choose from. Over four in 10 workers were extremely/very satisfied with their benefits package, in line with prior years. Top improvements suggested were greater financial contributions from their employer (48%), more flexibility of choice (34%), more resources/benefits to help with financial well-being (33%) and PTO conversion (31%). Health insurance was most often mentioned as a top benefit when deciding whether to stay at a current job or leave (72%), followed by a retirement savings plan (62%).

• Workers were somewhat open to using artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool to help navigate benefits and finances, but significant shares were skeptical. Half of the workers are comfortable using AI-powered tools or resources to help manage their finances and a similar share is comfortable using AI tools for customized employee benefit plan recommendations. Generally, workers are comfortable using AI tools to do their own work (61% agree) and over half say that AI tools can help them do their job more efficiently. Yet more than a third are concerned that increased use of AI may eliminate their job, which is an increase from 2024.

“Work-life balance continues to be a defining priority for workers, and this year’s findings suggest they’re looking for benefits that don’t just exist on paper but make day-to-day life easier—whether that’s more flexible work schedules, time off or benefit options they can tailor to their needs. At the same time, we’re seeing cautious interest in using AI to help people navigate benefits and finances, paired with real skepticism and worry about what expanded AI use could mean for jobs. The takeaway from this research is that employers have an opportunity: pair stronger flexibility and modern, understandable benefits with responsible, transparent use of AI that builds trust and helps employees feel more supported,” said Greg Hershberger, managing director, Health and Benefits, Greenwald Research.

To review the complete 6th Annual Workplace Wellness Survey report, visit  https://www.ebri.org/health/Workplace-Wellness-Survey.

The survey was made possible with support from AARP, Evernorth, Fidelity Investments, Mercer, Morgan Stanley, Mutual of Omaha, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Unum Group and Voya Financial.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute is a non-profit, independent and unbiased resource organization that provides the most authoritative and objective information about critical issues relating to employee benefit programs in the United States. The organization also coordinates activities for the Center for Research on Health Benefits Innovation, Financial Wellbeing Research Center, Retirement Security Research Center and produces a variety of leading industry surveys during the year. 

For more information, visit www.ebri.org.

#             #