Employee alleges Employer subjected him to unlawful retaliation and other unlawful acts and served him with false disciplinary charges

Plaintiff was served with Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary charges. After a Civil Service Law §75 hearing, a Hearing Officer found that Plaintiff was guilty a charge of speeding on the Thruway but found that all remaining disciplinary charges were not sustained. 

Although the Hearing Officer recommended that Plaintiff be restored to his position,  Plaintiff was reassigned to another facility, more than a three hour drive from Plaintiff's residence.

Plaintiff sued his Employer and other named individuals [Defendants] alleging that he was subjected to retaliation and other actions acts by Defendants including being served with disciplinary charges based on "false and manufactured charges", and a disciplinary suspension. The matter proceeded to trial and a jury considered the following three causes of action:

(1) Deprivation of Plaintiff's 14th Amendment right to equal protection pursuant to 42 USC §1983; 

(2) Retaliation in violation of 42 USC §1983; and 

(3) Tortious interference with business relations.

The jury found for Plaintiff and awarded Plaintiff $500,000 in damages for "pain, suffering, and emotional distress, harm to reputation, and loss of enjoyment of life". 

Supreme Court awarded Plaintiff $185,392 in attorneys' fees. 

Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's ruling, contending Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their CPLR 3211 motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's equal protection cause of action. The Appellate Division rejected that contention. 

Defendants, citing Engquist v Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (553 US 591), also argued that "a class-of-one equal protection claim is unavailable in the public employment context, and an equal protection claim based on selective enforcement, such as alleged by [Plaintiff], is likewise barred. Noting that the Second Circuit has left open that question and that there is a split of authority in the district courts, the Appellate Division said it was "persuaded by the reasoning in Airday v City of New York (2020 WL 4015770), that selective-enforcement claims survive after Engquist.

Defendants' further argued that, "even if selective-enforcement claims survived Engquist, they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC §1983". The Appellate Division said that such an argument was not preserved for its review, and, in any event, is without merit, observing that "Public officials may invoke qualified immunity under 42 USC §1983 unless, inter alia, the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time." Further, opined the Appellate Division, malice-based selective-enforcement claims premised on the violation of equal protection were recognized at the time of Defendants' actions and thus Defendants were aware of the purported unlawfulness of their conduct.

Defendants next contend that, with respect to Plaintiff's equal protection cause of action, Plaintiff failed to identify "a materially similar comparator whom [Defendants] treated differently and [Defendants] are therefore entitled to a directed verdict on that cause of action". The Appellate Division held that "[Defendants'] contention [was] not preserved for [its] review inasmuch as [Defendants] did not raise that issue in their motion for a directed verdict."

Defendants also argued that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their CPLR 3211 motion seeking to dismiss the retaliation cause of action because Plaintiff's speech was not protected inasmuch as it was speech he made as an employee, not as a citizen. The Appellate Division rejected that argument, noting that "To establish a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, a plaintiff  'must demonstrate that (1) [their] speech addressed a matter of public concern, (2) [they] suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the speech and the adverse employment action, so that it can be said that [their] speech was a motivating factor in the determination'". 

In contrast, the Appellate Division noted that "[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline".

The Appellate Division said it agreed with Defendants that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the tortious interference cause of action, observing that "Generally, actions against [New York] State officers acting in their official capacity in the exercise of governmental functions are deemed to be, in essence, claims against the State and, therefore, suable only in the Court of Claims".

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Defendants' contention that the matter should be remitted to Supreme Court for a recalculate the award of attorneys' fees and unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment without costs.

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

Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed

In this CPLR Article 78 Petitioner sought judicial review of a determination of the City of Newburgh [City] to adopt the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 in which the hearing officer found the Petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and recommended the termination of Petitioner's employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the City's decision.

City had filed an answer to Petitioner's appeal with objections in point of law, including that the Petitioner failed to serve a notice of timely claim as required by Section C6.47 of the City's Charter. Petitioner thereupon moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim. 

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). The Appellate Division, however, vacated so much of the Supreme Court's order as granted the Petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, dismissed the Article 78 proceeding and ordered one bill of costs to the City.

The Appellate Division, citing Clayton Indus., Inc. v City of Newburgh, 17 AD3d 309, noted that Section C6.47(A) of the City's Charter provides that with respect to non-tort claims:

1. No action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless "a written verified claim ... was served on the City ... within three months after the accrual of such claim";

2. Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City; and

3. Statutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed.

Noting that it is undisputed that Petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued as required by Section C6.47 of the City Charter , "unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "...  since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the [Petitioner's] motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim ... and it should have dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the [Petitioner] failed to timely serve a notice of claim as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh".

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

Court Notices 75 / Rules of the Chief Administrator

AMENDMENT OF RULE 

Rules of the Chief Administrator 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby amend paragraph 2 of subdivision (b) of section 137.1 and subdivision (B) of section 8 of Appendix A to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, effective November 1, 2026, to read as follows: 

Section 137.1. 

Application 

(b) This Part shall not apply to any of the following: 

(2) amounts in dispute involving a sum less than $1,000 or more than [$50,000] $100,000, except that an arbitral body may hear disputes involving other amounts if the parties have consented; 

APPENDIX A. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

Section 8. Selection and Assignment of Neutrals 

 B. Unless otherwise approved by the Board: 

1. Disputes involving a sum of less than [$10,000] $20,000 shall be submitted to one attorney arbitrator; 

2. Disputes involving a sum of [$10,000] $20,000 or more shall be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators, which shall include at least one nonlawyer member of the public.

Posted In the New York State Register, August 12, 2026 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Vol. XLVIII Division of Administrative Rules Issue 32

Audit reports for the New York State and New York City entities listed below issued on October 10, 2026

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

Department of State – Office for New Americans: Connecting and Providing Immigrants With Legal Services (2023-S-35)

The Office for New Americans (ONA) offers New Americans help with accessing and navigating free services and supports through its grants and contracts with a statewide network of not-for-profit community-based providers. Through nine grant-funded programs, grantees provide referrals to legal service providers and assist New Americans with naturalization applications and citizenship interviews. Auditors identified several areas that ONA should address to improve its ability to connect and provide New Americans with legal services. For example, ONA lacks adequate information to assess and estimate potential unmet need and grantees’ ability and capacity to meet it. Auditors also found limitations in the quarterly reports that ONA requires from grantees that make them difficult to use and compare, as well as inconsistencies in grantees’ reported numbers that represent potential inaccuracies and/or lack of understanding about how to report their activity.

New York City Administration for Children’s Services & New York City Department of Youth and Community Development – Identifying, Reporting, and Providing Services for Youth at Risk of Sexual Human Trafficking in New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-14)
The 2014 federal Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act requires the screening of children within the child welfare system for potential sex trafficking, timely reporting of sex trafficking incidents to law enforcement, and data collection on sex-trafficked and at-risk youth. A prior audit, issued in June 2022, examined whether New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) identify, report on, and provide services for victims of child sex trafficking and those at risk of child sex trafficking. The audit found that ACS officials failed to support that they ensured staff and providers screened children to identify sex-trafficked victims or at-risk youth, and that DYCD does not have procedures requiring its providers to screen youth for indicators of trafficking. ACS and DYCD officials have made limited progress in addressing the issues identified in the original audit report. Of the initial report’s nine audit recommendations, two (addressed to DYCD) were implemented, three (two addressed to ACS and one to DYCD) were partially implemented, and four were not implemented (two addressed to each ACS and DYCD).

State Education Department – English Language Learners Programs (Follow-Up) (2025-F-28)
School districts are required to provide English as a New Language (ENL) service to all eligible English Language Leaners (ELLs) and are required to make Bilingual Education (BE) programs available in all home languages spoken by 20 or more ELLs of the same grade and home language districtwide. A prior audit, issued in September 2024, examined whether the State Education Department (SED) is adequately overseeing whether school districts are providing services to ELLs as required. The audit found school districts lacked BE programs and certified BE teachers, could not consistently provide sufficient documentation to support that ELLs completed the identification process and received required ENL services, and did not always submit accurate data to the Student Information Repository System or share information regarding ELL transfer students. SED officials have made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the original audit report. All seven of the initial report’s audit recommendations were implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – William T. Dillon Child Study Center at St. Joseph’s University, New York: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2024-S-21)
William T. Dillon Child Study Center (Dillon Center) at St. Joseph’s University, New York is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide Integrated Special Class education services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, Dillon Center reported approximately $1.3 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $392,884 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Olympic Regional Development Authority – Security Over Critical Payment Systems (2025-S-23)
The New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority’s (ORDA) mission is to bring economic and social benefits to the Adirondacks and Catskills by managing venues that offer recreational and athletic opportunities. ORDA is subject to New York State Office of Information Technology Services policies and standards. To process credit cards, ORDA must follow the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). Auditors identified areas where ORDA could improve its overall governance of information technology, compliance with PCI DSS requirements, and certain security controls in place to minimize the various risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data, and communicated the details of these findings in a confidential report to ORDA officials.

###

New York State may not prohibit access to certain Grievance Committee proceedings and records without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality

After the Grievance Committee* informed Plaintiffs-Appellees that any resulting proceedings against twenty-one prosecutors would remain confidential, Plaintiffs-Appellees brought a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action contending that Section 90(10) of the New York Judiciary Law, which by default seals and mandates confidentiality of attorney grievance matters, violates their First Amendment right of access as applied to their complaints.

A federal District Court had ruled that a First Amendment presumption of access attaches to formal disciplinary hearings in the Second Department to records necessary to understand those hearings and to the final dispositions by the Grievance Committee. As  Section 90(10) impermissibly interferes with that right, the District Court found the New York State statute to be unconstitutional as applied against Plaintiffs-Appellees’ complaints. 

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, [Second Circuit] explained that, despite the State’s contentions otherwise, Plaintiffs-Appellees’ claims are ripe and abstention, pursuant to O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), is unwarranted.

The Second Circuit said that it concluded that the experience and logic test supports a qualified, presumptive First Amendment right of access to formal disciplinary hearings,  including "all pertinent records, and select dispositions of the Grievance Committee". 

The Second Circuit also held that New York State may not prohibit Plaintiffs-Appellees’ access to such proceedings and records pertaining to their complaints without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality and affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

* Attorney Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts [“Grievance Committee”], which is one of three such committees for the Second Department.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.

Executive Order No. 62: Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers in New York while the State Develops Higher Standards for Data Center Development and Benefits Blueprint to Support Localities

WHEREAS, New York State (the State) is experiencing unprecedented growth in demand for data center development, driven by the need for computing infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, streaming services, and other computing operations; and 

WHEREAS, the increasing demand for data storage and processing capacities, especially for intensive computational tasks, has led to multiple proposals for the construction and operation of data centers that require large amounts of energy and water to run and cool thousands of computer servers; and 

WHEREAS, as of May 2026, nearly 12 gigawatts (12,000 megawatts) of data center load requests are in the New York Independent System Operator interconnection queue with more than eight gigawatts entering the queue in 2025 alone, representing accelerating demand growth and a need for action; and 

WHEREAS, Energize NY Development, announced in the 2026 State of the State, directs the Public Service Commission to modernize how large energy consumers, including data centers, connect to the grid, while ensuring those consumers pay their fair share or supply their own power; and 

WHEREAS, it is the policy of New York State that the cost of electric system upgrades required to provide electric utility service to large loads should not be paid for by every-day New Yorkers; and 

WHEREAS, the growth of Statewide electric load caused by data centers challenges the clean energy targets of the State and will require the procurement of additional energy supply to serve this incremental electric load; and 

WHEREAS, data center development can be unpredictable and creates potential risk for utilities and ratepayers, including when infrastructure investments are made in anticipation of loads that may not fully materialize; and 

WHEREAS, the State is dedicated to environmental quality, sound public health and safety, economic prosperity, and social well-being; and 

WHEREAS, New Yorkers have expressed legitimate concerns regarding the potential impacts of the siting and operation of data centers on energy use, water use, water quality, air quality, noise, lighting, quality of life, and other potential environmental impacts; and 

WHEREAS, the State’s existing regulatory frameworks are not yet prepared to address the large-scale water use and treatment from data centers which could strain aquifers, surface waters, and public infrastructure; and 

WHEREAS, as competition for clean freshwater resources increases due to threats to water quality and changing precipitation and drought patterns from climate change, the need to maximize water reuse and implement the best available technologies to conserve water resources becomes increasingly important, especially within sectors of highwater-demand such as data centers; and 

WHEREAS, without regulations, policies, or guidance that enable safe, efficient, and economically viable water use and reuse, the State risks exacerbating water scarcity conditions in high-demand areas, constraining industrial growth, and undermining long-term climate resilience; and 

WHEREAS, localities across New York are increasingly contending with the costs and benefits of serving as host communities for data centers, and hosting a data center presents unique opportunities for the host community to encourage and secure private sector investment from the developer or operator that delivers meaningful local benefits; and 

WHEREAS, while the negotiation of local benefits with data center developers or operators is the responsibility of the locality, the State can offer valuable technical resources and provide best practices to support the negotiation of meaningful local commitments from the developer or operator; 

NOW, THEREFORE I, Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows: 

1. Data Center Permitting Moratorium and Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) The Department of Public Service (DPS) is directed to examine the impacts associated with the interconnection of data centers to the electric distribution network through its proceeding under Case 26-E0045, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Address Interconnection Reforms for Large Loads. 

In connection with such proceeding, DPS is further directed to initiate a formal public process, including public comment and a public hearing, to create a Generic Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act at Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, SEQRA), to assess the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of data centers in the State, including energy demand, water use and quality, air quality, disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities, and noise levels. DPS shall submit a report of such Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement and findings statement. DPS shall consult with the Department of Environmental Conservation and other relevant state agencies and authorities. 

Until DPS submits its report of the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement and associated findings statement, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), consistent with its obligations under SEQRA, is directed to hold in abeyance all applications for any discretionary permit, approval, license, or similar form of permission for the construction or expansion of a data center that (1) are or may hereafter be pending before DEC and (2) have not been determined to be complete by DEC before the date of this Executive Order. As a condition precedent to a determination of completeness for an application for a discretionary permit, approval, license, or similar form of permission, DEC may require the applicant to identify and describe in writing whether such application relates to or involves the construction or operation of a data center. 

This provision does not apply to permits, approvals, licenses, or similar forms of permission from local governments. DEC shall assist DPS in the preparation of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement referenced above. 

2. Developing a Community Investment Framework To assist localities across New York in analyzing and attaining local economic benefits and mitigating potential negative effects of serving as a host community for a data center, Empire State Development (ESD) is directed, within 60 days of this Executive Order, to consider feedback on and create and post on its website a Community Investment Framework. 87 ESD shall include in such Community Investment Framework, guidance associated with: 

a. Creation and maintenance of a community investment fund into which data center developers or operators provide capital that can be used for energy affordability efforts and enhancements to public services such as child care, K-12 programming, or public infrastructure. 

b. Investments in local infrastructure such as local energy distribution systems, broadband or irrigation systems or wastewater treatment plants 

c. Establishment of frameworks that provide organized labor a seat at the table and prioritize prevailing wage standards and project labor agreements for data center construction, local hiring, apprenticeships and workforce development to maximize economic benefits. 

d. Transparency through reporting requirements or other means so that communities understand many of the key economic metrics associated with data center development. Localities and other governmental entities, including but not limited to Industrial Development Agencies, may use the Community Investment Framework to negotiate terms and conditions with the developer or operator of such data center, to help the host community explore ways it can directly benefit from such project through established partnerships, direct investments in the community, and any other appropriate terms. 

3. The New York Grid Acceleration Fund DPS is also directed to consider the development of a mechanism to protect all customers from the risk of significant costs and risks of stranded assets, including consideration of a New York Grid Acceleration Fund, and may consider such as part of the Energize NY Proceeding. The Fund may require data centers to make upfront capital contributions to finance grid improvements, participate in demand response programs, support the procurement of new clean energy supply including distributed energy resources, and establish an insurance pool to which developers may need to contribute. This Fund would help ensure that New York’s grid is modernized to maintain reliability while also ensuring the costs of integrating and serving these new loads are not borne by other ratepayers. 

The Fund could also explore options to support energy affordability. DPS shall consider assessing how data center contributions to the Fund may be structured, including contribution levels and how funds may be allocated. Additionally, the department shall consider developing a process to work with utilities and other stakeholders to identify necessary infrastructure improvements across the grid. 

A component of the Fund may include measures to protect ratepayers from project delays, changes in scope, or cancellations that could result in stranded assets. As part of this effort, DPS may evaluate approaches to require data centers to fund new clean electric generation and/or battery storage dedicated to their operations, consistent with the State’s clean energy goals, including customer-sited distributed energy resources, to the greatest extent feasible. 

4. Interconnection, Reliability, and Cost Allocation DPS is directed within sixty days to form a Data Center Interconnection Working Group to identify and resolve issues related to the interconnection of data centers, and other large loads, in order to support efficient interconnection of large new customers and the faithful compliance of “beneficiary pays” principles as related to network upgrade and resource adequacy costs. DPS is directed to convene the State’s transmission owners to review their practices and methodologies for studying the system impacts of data centers, and other large loads in order to understand their sufficiency for the purpose of estimating and managing cost impacts, both as they relate to network upgrades and to supply. DPS is directed to report to the Commission within ninety days. Data centers may also be subject to service classifications and requirements pertaining to data centers to be developed by DPS and as may be established by the Public Service Commission in the exercise of its discretion. 

5. Data Center Water Withdrawal Review and Report DEC shall assess whether any new or amended regulations, policies, reporting, or guidance is necessary or appropriate to help ensure its water withdrawal program requirements, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 602, accurately and completely reflect the water demands of large use customers in the State, including data centers. 

No later than twelve months after the date of this order, DEC shall deliver a report setting forth the results of such assessment and an identification of the potential regulatory, policy, and guidance actions that are necessary or appropriate to address the concerns associated with the siting and operation of data centers in the State. 

6. Definition For the purposes of this Executive Order, “data center” shall mean a facility or group of facilities located on the same site or contiguous sites used to house computer servers, associated components, or computing or telecommunications equipment for the storage, processing, distribution, and / or management of data. Characteristics of data centers subject to this Executive Order include computer servers, associated components, or computing or telecommunications equipment which: (1) are in facilities containing uninterruptible power supply systems, specialized cooling systems designed for high-density computing loads, and / or contain cybersecurity systems designed for secure digital infrastructure operations, (2) provide data storage, cloud computing, and/or content delivery to customers, internal operations, and/or affiliated business operations, oftentimes on a continuous twenty-four-hour cycle, and (3) consume or can consume 50 megawatts of energy or more. 

Provided, however, that a facility that is primarily used for manufacturing, research (including but not limited to quantum computing research or biomedical research), education (including but not limited to such facilities used by accredited colleges and universities in New York State, to the extent such colleges and universities are engaging in academic research, and the Empire AI consortium, or the institute, as defined in section three hundred sixty-one of the Economic Development Law), or the provision of medical care, is not covered by this definition and thus not subject to this Executive Order. 

7. Agency Consultation In implementing this order, DEC, DPS, and ESD shall consult with one another and with additional partner agencies and authorities in the State, including but not limited to the Authorities Budget Office, Department of Health, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Long Island Power Authority, the Department of State, as well as the New York Independent System Operator. (L.S.) 

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this fourteenth day of July in the year two thousand twenty-six. 

BY THE GOVERNOR /S/ Kathy Hochul 

/s/ Karen Persichilli Keogh Secretary to the Governor 

Executive Orders NYS Register/August 5, 2026 

On July 29, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that the following State Government Accountability audits were released.

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

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Medicaid Payments to Hospitals for Outpatient Services Billed as Inpatient Services for Recipients Enrolled in Managed Care (Follow-Up) (2026-F-1) When managed care enrollees receive care at hospitals, managed care organizations (MCOs) reimburse the hospitals, and a recipient’s hospital status—inpatient versus outpatient—affects Medicaid’s reimbursement. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, examined whether Medicaid made improper payments to hospitals for outpatient services billed as inpatient services for recipients enrolled in managed care with a focus on inpatient claims with patient stays of less than 24 hours (“short-stays”). The audit found that the Department of Health (DOH) did not review short-stay inpatient encounters or provide guidance to MCOs and hospitals on how to determine whether a short-stay claim should be billed as inpatient or outpatient. DOH officials made little progress in addressing the problems identified in the original audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented and three were not. implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Payments for Laboratory and Related Services (2023-S-51) The Department of Health (DOH) and managed care organizations (MCOs) can set limits on laboratory procedures, such as daily, weekly, yearly or per lifetime. These limits are enforced in MCOs’ claim processing systems and in eMedNY (the Medicaid claim processing and payment system) through system edits but can be exceeded for medical necessity. For the period from June 2019 through January 2025, auditors found $21.6 million in payments due to DOH not providing adequate guidance to providers and MCOs and not effectively monitoring claims for certain laboratory procedures, as well as weaknesses in the eMedNY system edits.

Office for People With Developmental Disabilities – Incentives for Non-Profit Service Providers’ Recruiting and Retention Efforts (2023-S-44) The Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) coordinates services for individuals directly through its 13 Developmental Disabilities Services Offices, and through a network of over 500 non-profit service providers (Providers). To address significant staff shortages that caused many Providers to close programs or reduce operations, OPWDD issued bonuses and supplemental one-time payments to help Providers retain and recruit direct support professionals, utilizing federal funding through the American Rescue Plan Act and enacting State budget cost‑of‑living adjustments. Auditors identified certain weaknesses in OPWDD’s oversight of various incentive payments, which resulted in inconsistent distribution of these payments to direct support professionals, potentially working counter to the bonus and incentive programs’ intention to retain and recruit this critical workforce sector.

Department of Motor Vehicles – Assessable Expenses of Administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act for the State Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2025 (2025-M-3) The Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act help ensure that the operators of motor vehicles driven in New York State possess adequate insurance coverage, or are financially secure, to compensate those persons they might injure or whose property they might damage as a result of an accident. The Department of Motor Vehicles is responsible for tracking the expenses of administering the acts and assessing these expenses on insurance carriers that issue policies or contracts of automotive bodily injury insurance. Auditors found that the expenses for administering the acts for the State Fiscal Year ended March 31, 2025 totaled $32.4 million.

Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Performing Arts Center Corporation – Security Over Critical Systems (2025-S-37) The Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Performing Arts Center Corporation operates the performing arts center housed within The Egg, which is part of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza complex in Albany. The Egg utilizes 11 systems to support its network and operations. The Egg is subject to New York State Office of Information Technology Services policies and standards under Executive Order 117. To process credit cards, The Egg must follow the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. Auditors identified areas where The Egg could improve security controls to minimize risks associated with unauthorized access to its systems and data and communicated the details of these findings in a confidential report to Egg officials.

###

Press Release - GOVERNOR HOCHUL ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS DISENROLLED FROM HOWARD UNIVERSITY TO EARN THEIR DEGREE AT SUNY AND CUNY

Impacted New York Resident Students Eligible For Expedited Late Admissions Review for Fall 2026 at Participating SUNY and CUNY Campuses

 

SUNY and CUNY Campuses To Provide $800 Credit To Offset Non-Refundable Howard University Enrollment Deposits

 

 

On July 27, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul announced that New York State is prepared to help students impacted by Howard University’s recent decision to disenroll more than 500 admitted students ahead of Fall 2026 classes beginning later this summer. Governor Hochul has directed the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) to work to ensure that every impacted New York resident student will have the opportunity to seek admission to participating SUNY or CUNY institutions for the Fall 2026 semester. Additionally, all impacted students will receive expedited late admissions review at participating campuses with available capacity.

 

“Hundreds of students, including New Yorkers, are scrambling and scared since they’ve been disenrolled from their intended college just a few weeks before classes are set to begin,” Governor Hochul said. “New York is home to the nation’s finest systems of public higher education, and we are ready to welcome these talented students with the opportunity they deserve. To every student who is worried that their educational future has been disrupted: New York is ready to support and empower you.”

 

Under Governor Hochul’s plan, participating SUNY and CUNY campuses will use existing capacity in their Fall 2026 entering classes, ensuring that this initiative will not reduce opportunities for other New York students seeking admission. Potential participating SUNY campuses that will provide expedited admissions review include the State University of New York at Albany, the State University of New York at Binghamton, the State University of New York at Buffalo, the State University of New York at Stony Brook, SUNY Buffalo State University, SUNY New Paltz, and SUNY Oneonta, with additional campuses reviewing available capacity.

 

State University of New York Chancellor John B. King Jr. said, “There is a place at SUNY for every New Yorker, and we want to empower all students with access to the affordable, excellent public higher education they deserve. We thank Governor Hochul for her leadership and vision to support students who recently were disenrolled elsewhere and ensure they are able to pursue their academic goals at SUNY campuses.”

 

The SUNY Board of Trustees said, “Uplifting students and empowering them to reach their full potential with an affordable, excellent public higher education is foundational to the SUNY System. Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, SUNY will be able to support students who were disenrolled from the school they planned to attend, and will ensure they are able to continue their academic journeys without interruption.”

 

City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez said, “CUNY’s mission is to expand access to higher education for all students, not restrict it based on financial means. To these students currently facing uncertainty and left in academic limbo: our doors are open, our admissions are expedited, and your dream of a college degree remains well within reach. We are grateful to Governor Hochul for her vision and swift action to help these displaced students find a home in our public university system.”

 

CUNY Board of Trustees Chairperson William C. Thompson Jr. said, “The Board of Trustees is dedicated to ensuring CUNY is responsive whenever New Yorkers face unexpected hurdles. Thanks to Governor Hochul’s decisive leadership, we have moved quickly to work with these students to provide the stability, academic excellence, and the immediate support they need.”

 

Assemblymember Alicia Hyndman said, "It is unfortunate that several students planning to attend Howard University were disenrolled last week," said Assemblywoman Alicia L. Hyndman, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. "To help impacted New York residents, the State is guaranteeing admission to participating SUNY or CUNY campuses. The state is also willing to help other scholars nationwide who are eligible for expedited late admission review for the fall semester at campuses with available capacity. With soaring financial costs, pursuing higher education is already hard. Let’s help make it easier for those who want to better themselves and pursue their dreams.”

 

Impacted students and families seeking additional information about eligibility, participating campuses and the admissions process are encouraged to visit SUNY at www.suny.edu/howard or CUNY at https://www.cuny.edu/admissions/undergraduate/.

 

About the State University of New York

The State University of New York is the largest comprehensive system of higher education in the United States, and more than 95 percent of all New Yorkers live within 30 miles of any one of SUNY’s 64 colleges and universities. Across the system, SUNY has four academic health centers, five hospitals, four medical schools, two dental schools, a law school, the country’s oldest school of maritime, the state's only college of optometry, 12 Educational Opportunity Centers, over 30 ATTAIN digital literacy labs, and manages one US Department of Energy National Laboratory. In total, SUNY serves about 1.7 million students across its portfolio of credit- and non-credit-bearing courses and programs, continuing education, and community outreach programs. SUNY oversees nearly a quarter of academic research in New York. Research expenditures system-wide are nearly $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2025, including significant contributions from students and faculty. There are more than three million SUNY alumni worldwide, and annually one in three New Yorkers who earn a college degree is a SUNY alum. To learn more about how SUNY creates opportunities, visit suny.edu.

 

About the City University of New York

The City University of New York is the nation’s largest urban public university, a transformative engine of social mobility that is a critical component of the lifeblood of New York City. Founded in 1847 as the nation’s first free public institution of higher education, CUNY today has seven community colleges, 11 senior colleges and eight graduate or professional institutions spread across New York City’s five boroughs, serving nearly 240,000 undergraduate and graduate students and awarding 50,000 degrees each year. CUNY’s mix of quality and affordability propels almost six times as many low-income students into the middle class and beyond as all the Ivy League colleges combined. More than 80 percent of the University’s graduates stay in New York, contributing to all aspects of the city’s economic, civic and cultural life and diversifying the city’s workforce in every sector. CUNY’s graduates and faculty have received many prestigious honors, including 13 Nobel Prizes and 26 MacArthur “genius” grants. The University’s historic mission continues to this day: provide a first-rate public education to all students, regardless of means or background. To learn more about CUNY, visit www.cuny.edu.

 

### 

New York State's Comptroller posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and programs on the Internet.

On July 16, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and Programs listed below on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted color to access the audit.

Battery Park City Authority – Access Controls and Vulnerability Management Over Critical Systems (2025-S-8) The Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) is a New York State public benefit corporation responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the 92-acre Battery Park City neighborhood in lower Manhattan. BPCA generates revenue primarily through ground leases and event permits, managing the latter through its own system, while various other functions utilize third-party vendors. Auditors evaluated BPCA’s information technology governance and security posture and identified areas where BPCA could improve overall governance and certain security controls to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its system and data.

Public Service Commission – Application Review and Site Permitting for Major Renewable Energy Projects (Follow-Up) (2025-F-27) Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), the Public Service Commission (PSC) was required to establish a renewable energy program by the end of June 2021 to meet two requirements: by 2030, a minimum of 70% of statewide electric generation secured by load-serving entities to meet their customers’ demand must be generated by renewable energy systems; and by 2040, the statewide electrical demand system must be zero emissions. In April 2020, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) was created to undertake the review of proposed major renewable energy facilities to meet the State’s goals. ORES was intended to reduce the time to site major renewable energy projects and bring them online faster. A prior audit, issued in April 2024, found that, while the overall time between application and final siting permit had improved since the creation of ORES, the process took significantly longer than originally envisioned because certain aspects of the process were not considered. PSC officials made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report and implemented the initial report’s one recommendation.

New York State Health Insurance Program – UnitedHealthcare: Accuracy of Payments for Surgical Procedures Involving Multiple Providers (2024-S-15) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York (United) administers the medical/surgical benefit of the Empire Plan. Surgical procedures sometimes require multiple providers, such as co-surgeons (two or more physicians who work together as primary surgeons performing distinct parts of a surgical procedure) or surgical assistants (physicians or other qualified health care professionals who assist physicians performing a surgical procedure). United’s reimbursement policies require co-surgeons and surgical assistants to report their roles during a surgical procedure to ensure claims are paid appropriately. For the period from January 2019 to June 2024, auditors identified nearly $12.5 million in potential overpayments for surgical procedures involving co-surgeons or surgical assistants.

Office of Children and Family Services – Child Care Stabilization Grants (Follow-Up) (2026-F-4) The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) administers several child care grant programs. Between May and June 2021, OCFS received $1.8 billion from the American Rescue Plan Act, plus $469 million from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. OCFS used the money to fund several COVID-19 response programs, awarding $1.173 billion in two rounds for grants to stabilize the child care sector and the child care workforce. A prior audit, issued in November 2024, found weaknesses in OCFS’ monitoring of grantee expenses claimed under the program to provide assurance that funds were used for allowable expenses. OCFS officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, one was implemented, and two were partially implemented.

New York State Health Insurance Program – Anthem Blue Cross: Coordination of Benefits With Medicare (Follow-Up) (2025-F-25) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and Anthem Blue Cross administers the Hospital Program of the Empire Plan. Many enrollees and their dependents have additional insurance coverage, such as Medicare, and Medicare typically pays claims as primary (Empire Plan typically pays secondary) for enrollees who are age 65 and older and retired. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, found that Anthem improperly paid $5,259,416 because benefits were not properly coordinated. Anthem has made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented, and three were partially implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Shield of David: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-24) Shield of David (Shield), d.b.a. The Shield Institute, is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Special Class and full-day Special Class in an Integrated Setting services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, Shield reported approximately $10.3 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $221,752 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Department of Environmental Conservation – Monitoring of Air Quality (Facility Permits and Registrations) (Follow-Up) (2025-F-13) The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issues air pollution control permits and registrations in accordance with its federally approved Air Pollution Control Permitting Program (Program), and its Environmental Justice Permitting Policy (Policy) (designed to address the fair treatment of all people regardless of race, income, national origin, or color, with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies) outlines DEC’s responsibilities for incorporating environmental justice into its review of air permit applications. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, found weaknesses in several aspects of DEC’s oversight of the Program—namely, implementation of the Policy and monitoring of permitted and registered facilities—that undermine its ability to ensure compliance with the Program and protect the State’s air from harmful pollutants. DEC officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, two were implemented, and two were partially implemented.

###

Audits of New York State local governments and New York public schools posted on the Internet

On July 9, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the local government and public school audits listed below were issued and have been posted on the Internet.

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

Village of Owego – Records and Reports (Tioga County) Village officials did not maintain complete, accurate and timely accounting records and reports. The clerk-treasurer’s accounting records contained errors and omitted transactions, and monthly bank reconciliations were not prepared. Because the clerk-treasurer also did not file the village’s annual financial report on time and the board did not perform an annual audit of the clerk-treasurer’s accounting records, officials did not comply with state laws.

Levittown Union Free School District – Financial Management (Nassau County) The board and district officials did not manage fund balance effectively. They overestimated certain appropriations, underestimated certain revenues and appropriated surplus fund balance and reserves to balance the budget when these funds were not necessary for operations. The board and district officials’ consistent practice of appropriating fund balance that is not needed to finance operations results in real property tax levies that are higher than needed.

Town of Newcomb – Town Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Essex County) The supervisor did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records and reports. As a result, the town board and town officials could not determine or manage the town’s true financial condition. This also impaired the board’s ability to make informed financial decisions and caused taxpayer inequities.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County) Auditors determined that the city’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and the related justification documents were in material compliance with the requirements of the fiscal agent act. The city’s 2026-27 adopted budget totals $1.64 billion, which includes operating and debt service funding of $822.5 million for the Yonkers public schools and $813.6 million for the city. The 2026-27 budget is $87.1 million more than the city’s budget for 2025-26, an increase of 5.6%.Auditors noted certain budgetary practices continue to pose risks to the city’s long-term financial condition. Specifically, the budget relies on $147.2 million in nonrecurring funding sources, including appropriated fund balance, one-time state and federal aid and revenues from property sales to finance recurring operating expenditures. Similar concerns have been communicated to city officials in prior years; however, the city continues to rely on these funding practices to balance the city’s budget. As a result, the city may face significant budgetary and cash flow challenges in future years if these resources are unavailable.

Sayville Fire District – Claims Audit (Suffolk County) The board did not properly audit and approve all claims before payment. When the board does not perform a thorough and complete review of claims to ensure that they are supported by adequate invoices or other documentation, the district has an increased risk that it could incur unnecessary costs or pay for goods or services that are not valid district expenditures.

Copiague Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Suffolk County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Copiague Union Free School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in a prior audit, Copiague Union Free School District – Information Technology (2023M-150), released in March 2024. The audit determined that district officials did not properly manage nonstudent network user accounts and financial software access controls. Of the four audit recommendations, the district’s IT director and officials fully implemented three recommendations and partially implemented one. Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing recommendations related to sensitive IT control weaknesses that were reported to officials confidentially and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases audit reports for the New York State local governments and school districts listed below

On June 2, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued and have been posted on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Village of Unadilla – Disbursements (Otsego County) Village officials did not ensure that disbursements were accurate, properly approved, supported and for appropriate village purposes. Auditors identified one or more deficiencies within 249 disbursements or 76% of the disbursements totaling $70,600 reviewed.

Gorham Fire District – Procurement (Ontario County) District officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services in an economical manner or in accordance with statutory requirements set forth in state law and the district’s procurement policy adopted on June 9, 2025. Of the 77 purchases totaling $446,884 auditors reviewed, district officials did not use competitive methods for 68 purchases totaling $403,377.

Town of Whitestown – Inventories (Oneida County) The superintendent did not properly safeguard and account for diesel fuel, gasoline and motor oil inventories. As a result, fuel and motor oil purchases totaling $172,588 or 85% of the total purchases made from Jan. 1, 2024 through Oct. 31, 2025, could not be accounted for because usage records were either not maintained or were incomplete and unreliable.

Town of Paris – Water and Sewer User Charges (Oneida County) Town officials did not properly manage billing, collection and enforcement activities associated with water and sewer user charges and the town board did not authorize the water rates. The board also did not provide adequate oversight and guidance to the town’s water and sewer clerk, increasing the risk of errors or irregularities that could occur without detection.

Town of Denmark – Claims Auditing (Lewis County) The board did not properly audit and approve all claims before payment. While the board approved a list of claims for payment each month, it did not conduct a thorough audit of individual claims to determine whether they contained adequate supporting documentation, represented actual and necessary expenditures and were for valid town purposes.

Uniondale Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Nassau County) The purpose of the review was to assess the Uniondale Union Free School District’s progress in implementing our recommendations in a prior audit Uniondale Union Free School District – Information Technology (2023M-61), released in October 2023. The audit determined that district officials did not adequately manage nonstudent network user accounts and permissions. Of the five audit recommendations, the district’s director of technology and library media services, technology supervisor, and officials partially implemented three recommendations and did not implement two recommendations. Auditors also reviewed progress in implementing the recommendations related to the sensitive IT control weaknesses that were reported to officials confidentially and communicated those results confidentially to district officials.

###