Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending June 18, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending June 18, 2016

Click on text highlighted in color to access the entire report 

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s office completed audits of the following school districts

These audits, summaries of which are set out below, are designed to assist schools improve their financial management practices and ensure proper policies and procedures are in place to protect public funds from waste, fraud and abuse. For additional background or a comment on a specific audit, contact Brian Butry, 518-474-4015 at the Office of the State Comptroller or email: bbutry@osc.state.ny.us 


Addison Central School District – Financial Condition (Steuben County)
During the last three completed fiscal years (2012-13 through 2014-15), the board and district officials overestimated general fund appropriations by $7.3 million (9 percent) resulting in combined operating surpluses totaling $6.4 million. District officials used the operating surpluses to make interfund transfers totaling approximately $4 million and increase reserves by $1.6 million. As a result, four reserves with balances totaling $2.9 million (48 percent of total reserves) are overfunded and potentially unnecessary. In addition, $570,000 in appropriated fund balance was not needed to finance operations. These practices allowed the district to report year-end unrestricted fund balance at levels that essentially complied with the statutory 4 percent fund balance limit. However, the district’s recalculated unrestricted fund balance ranged between 16 to 18 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations. As a result, the district’s tax levy was higher than necessary to fund operations.

Cattaraugus-Little Valley Central School District – Financial Management (Cattaraugus County)
The unrestricted fund balance for the district has consistently exceeded Real Property Tax Law limits. The district’s unrestricted fund balance was approximately $3.6 million (14 percent of the ensuing year’s budget) or approximately $2.6 million over the legally allowable limit and is projected to remain at nearly the same level at the end of 2015-16. Although the board and district officials annually appropriated a portion of fund balance towards the subsequent year’s budget, the total amounts appropriated were mostly not used because district officials overestimated appropriations. In addition, district officials consistently budgeted for expenditures that could have been paid for with reserve funds. Had district officials retained the same tax levy each subsequent year as in 2012-13, residents could have realized approximately $410,000 in cumulative tax savings.

Delaware Academy Central School District at Delhi – Fund Balances (Delaware County)
Each year during the audit period (July 1, 2014 through November 9, 2015), district officials appropriated more fund balance than needed, which artificially reduced unrestricted fund balance to within the 4 percent statutory limit percentage. Instead of having operating deficits totaling $2.8 million for the period, as planned, the district’s net result of operations was a surplus of $705,000. In addition, district officials overfunded five of the six reserves as of June 30, 2015. Moreover, district officials did not use debt service funds to make payments on long-term debt. With the inclusion of the unused appropriated fund balance, the overfunded reserves and the unused debt service funds, the fund balance for the five years ranged from 26.7 percent to 29.4 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations.

Lake Placid Central School District – Claims Auditing (Essex County)
Although claims were generally supported by adequate documentation and were for appropriate purposes, they were not always audited and approved prior to payment. The business manager, who also serves as the district’s treasurer, prints signed checks prior to the claims auditor’s audit and approval of the corresponding claims. When signed checks are generated prior to the claims auditor’s audit and approval, there is an increased risk that improper claims could be paid by the district.

North Rose-Wolcott Central School District – Financial Management (Wayne County)
The district has no written plan that details the appropriate and necessary levels for reserve funds and prescribes how the reserve fund balances are to be monitored, analyzed and maintained. As a result, four of the district’s 11 reserve funds, totaling more than $6.8 million, may be overfunded or unnecessary. Additionally, district officials have not developed formal multiyear financial or capital plans, which would greatly benefit it in meeting its current and future obligations.

Pembroke Central School District – Financial Management (Genesee County)
The board and district officials consistently overestimated appropriations. When the appropriated fund balance not needed to finance operations is included in unrestricted fund balance, the district’s recalculated unrestricted fund balance from 2012 to 2014 ranged from approximately $2 million (9 percent) to $2.2 million (11 percent), exceeding the statutory limit. This trend is projected to continue through 2015-16. The board and district officials have not properly managed four reserves that appear to be overfunded or contain funds that are improperly restricted by approximately $7.6 million, which is approximately 35 percent of 2015-16 budgeted appropriations. District officials also consistently budgeted for expenditures that could have been paid for with reserve funds. Had district officials maintained the same tax levy as in 2012-13, residents could have realized approximately $720,000 in cumulative tax savings.

Pulaski Central School District – Financial Condition (Oswego County)
The board consistently overestimated appropriations in the district’s adopted budgets. Although the district reported year-end unrestricted general fund balance at levels that essentially complied with the 4 percent statutory limit, the board adopted budgets which included appropriated fund balance and reserves that were not needed as funding sources because the board and district officials overestimated appropriations by an average of 8.8 percent over the last three fiscal years. As a result, the district experienced an operating surplus in 2011-12 and operating deficits in 2012-13 and 2014-15 that were significantly less than planned. When the unused appropriated fund balance was added back, recalculated unrestricted fund balance averaged about 8 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations exceeding the legal limit.

Sackets Harbor Central School District – Financial Condition (Jefferson County)
The board has consistently overestimated appropriations in its adopted budgets by about 9 percent over the past three years. As a result, a significant portion of the fund balance appropriated in the general fund was not needed to finance operations and unassigned fund balance has exceeded the 4 percent legal limit from fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15. The district has reduced the reported level of year-end unassigned fund balance from 12 percent of the ensuing year’s budget at the end of 2012-13 to 8.6 percent at the end of 2014-15. However, when the unused appropriated fund balance was added back, the recalculated unassigned fund balance exceeded 15 percent of the next year’s appropriations in all three years.

Somers Central School District – Fixed Assets (Westchester County)
Although the district has procedures specific to the maintenance of IT inventory, the board has not adopted an asset policy establishing capitalization or tagging thresholds, control over assets, or how to maintain records for these assets. Consequently, three assets valued at $1,650 could not be located and 21 assets valued at $69,370 were either not tagged or the asset tag numbers did not agree with the asset records. Furthermore, 10 assets purchased in 2015-16 valued at $57,573 were not recorded on the asset list and nine assets valued at $45,750 were listed as disposed of, but were still in service. Auditors found that 18 of 20 assets listed as disposed of, valued at $32,920, did not have documentation indicating authorization or approval.

South Lewis Central School District – Financial Condition (Lewis County)
The district’s unassigned fund balance has exceeded the 4 percent legal limit from fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15. At the end of 2014-15, the district’s fund balance was approximately $2.4 million, or 9.7 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations. Although the district’s unassigned fund balance has exceeded the statutory limit for the past three fiscal years, the board increased the tax levy from $7.8 million in 2012-13 to $8.3 million in 2015-16, an increase of about 6 percent.

Union Springs Central School District – Retiree Health Insurance Contributions (Cayuga County)
District officials ensured that retiree health insurance contributions were properly billed, collected and deposited. Although the account clerk performs most of the duties, district officials implemented proper compensating controls to ensure bills are accurate, money is collected from all retirees and money is deposited into district bank accounts.

Watertown City School District – Financial Condition (Jefferson County)
The district has overestimated appropriations in the adopted budgets by about an average of 14 percent annually over the past three years. As a result, a significant portion of the fund balance appropriated in the general fund was not needed to finance operations and unassigned fund balance has exceeded the 4 percent legal limit each of the last three fiscal years. The district reduced the reported level of year-end unassigned fund balance from 9.3 percent at the end of 2012-13 to 6.9 percent at the end of 2014-15, but when the unused appropriated fund balance is added back, the recalculated unassigned fund balance exceeds 20 percent of the next year’s appropriations for each of the three years.

Wheelerville Union Free School District – Fund Balance (Fulton County)
The district has not correctly recorded and reported the composition of its fund balance. Since the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, the treasurer has recorded and reported the amount of unrestricted fund balance that exceeds the statutory limit at the end of each fiscal year as “other restricted fund balance” to keep the unrestricted fund balance within the limit. This accounting practice understates the true amount of the general fund’s unrestricted fund balance and circumvents the statutory limit the district is permitted to retain. As a result, over the four past fiscal years the district retained unrestricted fund balance amounts that ranged from 15 percent to 34 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations.

Williamson Central School District – Procurement of Professional Services (Wayne County)
Although the board has developed a purchasing policy and district officials have developed corresponding regulations, they do not provide guidance for seeking competition when procuring professional services. The policy and regulations do not indicate when, or at what monetary threshold, it is appropriate to use written requests for proposals, written quotes or oral quotes. Additionally, the policy and regulations do not outline the specific documentation requirements to be used during the solicitation process.

Willsboro Central School District – Financial Condition (Essex County)
The district has accumulated unrestricted fund balance that exceeds the statutory limit by approximately $977,000 (nearly 12 percent) and has levied more taxes than were needed to fund operations during the 2013-14 through 2015-16 fiscal years. The board also overestimated appropriations in the 2012-13 through 2014-15 budgets by more than $2.3 million (10 percent). The district’s budgeting practices made it appear that they needed to both raise taxes and appropriate fund balance and reserves to close projected budget gaps, despite an operating surplus of $51,390 during the 2012-13 fiscal year and smaller-than-planned operating deficits of $24,169 in 2013-14 and $39,578 in 2014-15. 

Daughter alleged to have stolen over $148,000 of New York State Public Employees’ Retirement System funds following her failure to report her father’s death to the System

Daughter alleged to have stolen over $148,000 of New York State Public Employees’ Retirement System funds following her failure to report her father’s death to the System

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

[N.B. The charges set out in an indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.] 

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman reported the unsealing of an indictment charging Renee Kanas, 63, a resident of Tamarac, Florida, with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a Class C felony.

Kanas is alleged to have stolen over $148,000 in pension payments from the New York State and Local Employees Retirement System paid to her father, Jacob Yudenfreund, a New York State pensioner who died in March 2010.

According to the indictment and statements made by the prosecutor at the arraignment, Kanas’ father was a New York State pensioner who elected to receive reduced monthly benefits so his wife, Doris Yudenfreund, would continue to receive benefits after his death.  Mrs. Yudenfreund, however, predeceased Mr. Yudenfreund.  As such, upon Mr. Yudenfreund’s passing in March 2010, eligibility for any of his retirement allowance terminated.  

According to the Comptroller and Attorney General, Kanas failed to notify the New York State and Local Employees Retirement System of her father’s death.  Instead, from March 2010 until January 2015, pension benefits totaling over $148,000 were deposited into a bank account jointly held by Mr. Yudenfreund and Kanas.  Kanas allegedly accessed these funds after her father’s death and liquidated all but $1,207.55 in pension benefits over that time period.

The allegations concerning Renee Kanas are posted on the Internet at::

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/june16/061716a.htm

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse.  Individuals can report allegations of fraud involving public funds by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by transmitting an e-mail to investigations@osc.state.ny.us, by filing a complaint online at http://osc.state.ny.us/investigations/complaintform2.htm or by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Former treasurer of a volunteer fire company indicted for wire fraud and subscribing to false tax returns

Former treasurer of a volunteer fire company indicted for wire fraud and subscribing to false tax returns

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

[N.B. The charges contained in an Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.]

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Thomas P. DiNapoli, New York State Comptroller, Shantelle P. Kitchen, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), Diego Rodriguez, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and George Beach, Superintendent, New York State Police reported the arrest of Michael Klein, the former treasurer of the Mahopac Volunteer Fire Department (“MVFD”), on charges of wire fraud and subscribing to false tax returns.

Klein, Fire Department’s elected treasurer, is alleged to have stolen $5.7 million of the Fire Department’s monies over a period of more than 13 years.  

Details concerning the allegations involving Michael Klein are posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/june16/061516.htm

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse.  Individuals can report allegations of fraud involving public funds by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by transmitting an e-mail to investigations@osc.state.ny.us, by filing a complaint online at http://osc.state.ny.us/investigations/complaintform2.htm or by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Requiring employees to submit to a “dog-sniffing test” for illegal drugs

Requiring employees to submit to a “dog-sniffing test” for illegal drugs

Correction Officers’ Benevolent Assoc. v City of New York, USDC, Southern District of New York, 15-CV-5914

The New York City Department of Corrections established a “zero tolerance” drug policy providing for the termination of any employee, uniformed (i.e., correction officers), or civilian, who violated the policy. Its justification: the policy serves important functions by acting as a deterrent against drug traffic in its facilities and ensured that “the security of penal institutions is not breached.”

A federal judge dismissed the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association’s [COBA] challenge to the New York City's requiring its correction officers to be searched when “drug-sniffing dogs” react positively to the individual. An officer could be suspended if he or she refused to submit to the search for contraband.

Judge Alison Nathan rejected COBA’s argument that searches aided by the drug-sniffing dogs violated its members' constitutional rights as well as New York State's Civil Service Law.

Judge Nathan ruled that COBA cannot claim its member's constitutional rights were being violated by their employer’s efforts to detect individuals attempting to transport drugs into the facility in violation of the law and the controlling Collective Bargaining Agreement. The court also rejected COBA claim that “drug-sniffing dogs” could produce “false positives.”

Other decision testing New York City’s Zero Tolerance Drug Policy include:

Roberts v New York City Office of Collective Bargaining, 113 AD3d 97, [Fire Department's determination of an appropriate penalty for illegal drug use relates to its primary mission of providing public safety];

New York City Fire Department v Armbruster, OATH Index #1350/12 [Firefighter who tested positive for cocaine in a random workplace drug test failed to demonstrate that he consumed the cocaine unknowingly];

Dept. of Corrections v Robbins, OATH 2030/99, [there are instances, particularly where a civilian employee is involved, when the “automatic penalty” under the department’s zero tolerance drug policy should not be applied].

The Doctrine of Election of Remedies bars an individual from attempting to litigate a matter involving the same issue earlier adjudicated in a different forum

The Doctrine of Election of Remedies bars an individual from attempting to litigate a matter involving the same issue earlier adjudicated in a different forum

Nizamuddeen v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 04418, Appellate Division, Second Department
Appeal of Matthew Nadolecki, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,894, 

The New York City Transit Authority, [MTA] hired Arif Nizamuddeen as a bus operator subject to a probationary period of employment. The Nizamuddeen had notified MTA that in 2006 he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which was in remission, when he was selected for employment.

After numerous extensions of Nizamuddeen’s period of probation, in March 2014 MTA terminated the Nizamuddeen’s employment “due to his unsatisfactory attendance record after multiple episodes of absences from work.”

Nizamuddeen filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] alleging that MTA terminated his employment because of his disability in violation of Executive Law Article 15, New York State’s Human Rights Law. SDHR dismissed Nizamuddeen’s discrimination claim on the merits.*

Nizamuddeen subsequently commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding against MTA in the Supreme Court, asserting allegations essentially identical to those set out in the complaint he had filed with SDHR. Supreme Court denied Nizamuddeen’spetition and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that Nizamuddeen was precluded from maintaining the proceeding by the election of remedies provision in Executive Law §297(9). 

Nizamuddeen appealed the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining that Executive Law §297(9) provides that an individual claiming to be aggrieved by unlawful discrimination on the part of the employer may sue in court "unless such person had filed a complaint [with the SDHR]." Thus the individual’s filing of a complaint with SDHR precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts.* Nizamuddeen, said the Appellate Division, “is barred from maintaining this CPLR Article 78 proceeding by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in [Nizamuddeen’s] complaint filed with [SDHR].”

The Appeal of Matthew Nadolecki, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,894, provides another example of the application of the Doctrine of Election of Remedies.

The Commissioner said that “It is well settled that a school employee who elects to submit an issue for resolution through a contractual grievance procedure may not bring an appeal to the Commissioner of Education for review of the same matter.”

Nadolecki brought a "Level 1" grievance in which he alleged that the district’s efforts to terminate him violated provisions set out in the controlling collective bargaining agreement and asserted that certain other contractual provisions regarding evaluations and observations were not adhered to. As relief, he sought an arbitration award directing the rescission of his termination. Both this and “the Level 2 grievance” were denied.

The Commissioner found that Nadolecki was attempting to raise the same issues in this appeal that he had raised in the contract grievance, rejecting his argument that because he only grieved school district’s “intention” to terminate his employment, he is entitled to commence an appeal on those same issues with respect to his "actual termination."  

The Commissioner explained that in his grievance Nadolecki’s claimed that the school district violated the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and these was the same issues he presented in his appeal to the Commissioner. 

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed his appeal “for lack of jurisdiction,” noting that Nadolecki’sclaims “would be dismissed under the doctrine of election of remedies in any case.”  The prior commencement of an action or proceeding in another forum for the same or similar relief constitutes an election of remedies which precludes the initiation of an appeal to the Commissioner. 

* In contrast to SDHR’s dismissing Nizamuddeen’s complaint on the merits, had SDHR  dismissed his complaint for “administrate convenience” or had Nizamuddeen, prior to the hearing before the SDHR hearing officer, successfully requested that SDHR dismiss his complaint and annul his “election of remedies” to submit to the jurisdiction of SDHR, he could have pursued his Human Rights Law claim in a judicial forum.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04418.htm

Consolidation of Investigator titles in State Department and Agencies

Consolidation of Investigator titles in State Department and Agencies

New York State Department of Civil Service  

General Information Bulletin No. 16-03, Investigator Titles Consolidation

Scott DeFruscio, New York State Department of Civil Service Director of Staffing Services has posted New York State Department of Civil Service General Information Bulletin No. 16-03 explaining the changes to investigator titles described in a memorandum from the Department’s Director of Classification and Compensation dated May 20, 2016, and which took effect on June 16, 2016.

Bulletin No. 16-03 describes the Investigator series replacing the numerous titles currently in use and provides information developed to guide departments and agencies addressing the hiring and career mobility of employees in these new title series.

The result of the changes in the Investigator series on existing titles could result in a title consolidation, a reallocation, or a title change. Therefore, the impact of this change on employee mobility and eligible list usage may differ depending on relevant circumstances.

The Classification and Compensation memorandum is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.cs.ny.gov/businesssuite/News-and-Advisories/Classification-and-Compensation-Memos/index.cfm

General Information Bulletin No. 16-03 is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/GIB16-03.pdf

 

Reimbursment of Medicare premiums paid by retirees participating in their former employer’s health insurance plan

Supreme Court, Broome County, granted Theodora Q. Bryant’s CPLR Article 78 application to annul a determination of Chenango Forks Central School District to terminate reimbursement of certain Medicare premiums.* 

The Public Employment Relations Board directed the School District to rescind its June 2003 memorandum in which it notified employees and retirees that it was terminating its practice of reimbursing Medicare Part B premiums.

In a companion case PERB ruled that the school district must reinstate its former practice of reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums -- the same relief sought in the current proceeding.

The Appellate Division noted that PERB's order in the companion case has been upheld by the Court of Appeals [see 2013 NY Slip Op 04039 (2013)]. Accordingly, Bryant received the full relief challenged by School District in the current appeal as a result of that determination, . Accordingly, the court ruled that the instant appeal is now moot.

As to argument advanced under color of an exception to the mootness doctrine, the Appellate Division held that the claimed exception “does not apply in that, although the issue advanced herein may recur and is significant, it is not likely to evade review.”

* The underlying facts are set forth in the Appellate Division’s prior decision (21 AD3d 1134 [2005]) and in the companion case brought by the Chenango Forks Central School District (Matter of Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 95 AD3d 1479 [2012], affd ___ NY3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 04039 [2013]). See, also, NYPPL’s summary of that decision posted on the Internet at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/search?q=bryant

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04379.htm

Health insurance company’s claim for reimbursement for certain medical cost it incurred from a “no fault” automobile insurance carrier denied

Health insurance company’s claim for reimbursement for certain medical cost it incurred from the “no fault” automobile insurance carrier denied
Aetna Health Plans v Hanover Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 04658, Court of Appeals

In this action brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act [Insurance Law §5101, et seq. -- the "No-Fault" Law] Aetna Health Plans alleged that it paid certain bills that should have been paid by Hanover Insurance Company, the no-fault insurer involved in this action, that were submitted to Aetna by the medical providers. Ultimately Hanover refused to reimburse Aetna for all of the payments Aetna made to the medical providers.

The resolution of this action by the Court of Appeals may, under certain circumstances, impact on the administration of General Municipal Law §§207-a and 207-c with respect to medial expenses paid by a municipality on behalf of a police officer or firefighter injured in the line of duty.

Aetna, as its insured’s assignee, sued Hanover seeking a court order directing Hanover to fully reimbursement it for all of the medical expenses it paid directly to the medical providers. Hanover, in response, moved to dismiss the complaint based upon Aetna’s “lack of standing,” contending that Aetna was not entitled to direct reimbursement because, citing 11 NYCRR 65-3.11(a),* Aetna was an insurance company and not a provider of health care services. Hanover argued that the only type of assignee permitted were those set out in the regulation and Aetna was not in privity of contract with Hanover.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Hanover, holding that that the Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act [Insurance Law §5101, et seq. -- the "No-Fault" Law] does not contemplate that reimbursement for expenses paid by a “health insurer” is to be paid to the “health insurer” in contrast to providing for such a payment to be made to a “health care provider.”

The Doctrine of Unintended Consequences might have been be triggered by this ruling.

General Municipal Law §§207-a and 207-c, respectively, provide that the employer shall be liable for the payment of the salary or wages payable to a firefighter or police officer who suffers disability as the result of an injury or disease suffered in course of performing his or her official duties and for the cost of medical or hospital care or treatment furnished such personnel until the appropriate health authority or physician shall certify that such injured or sick fireman or police officer has recovered and is physically able to perform his or her regular duties.

Further, these sections provide that “Notwithstanding any provision of law contrary thereto contained herein or elsewhere, a cause of action shall accrue to the municipality for reimbursement in such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the policeman shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.”

The Court of Appeals’ ruling in Aetna Health Plans could have an impact, in whole or in part, on a municipality as the police officer’s or firefighter’s employer in situations where the municipality seeks reimbursement for medical and, or, hospital expenses it incurred pursuant to the mandates of §§207-a and 207-c in providing “medical or hospital care” for police and fire personnel in situations where the Comprehensive Motor Reparations Act would otherwise be operative.

* 11 NYCRR 65-3.1, Applicability, provides that “The following are rules for the settlement of claims for first-party and additional first-party benefits on account of injuries arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle, a motorcycle or an all-terrain vehicle. These rules shall apply to insurers and self-insurers, and the term insurer, as used in this section, shall include both insurers and self-insurers as those terms are defined in this Part and article 51 of the Insurance Law, the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC), pursuant to section 5221(b) of the Insurance Law and any company or corporation providing insurance pursuant to section 5103(g) of the Insurance Law, for the items of basic economic loss specified in section 5102(a) of the Insurance Law;” and

11 NYCRR 65-3.11(a) provides “An insurer shall pay benefits for any element of loss other than death benefits, directly to the applicant or, when appropriate, to the applicant's parent or legal guardian or to any person legally responsible for necessities, or, upon assignment by the applicant or any of the aforementioned persons, shall pay benefits directly to providers of health care services as covered under section 5102(a)(1) of the Insurance Law, or to the applicant's employer for loss of earnings from work as authorized under section 5102(a)(2) of the Insurance Law. Death benefits shall be paid to the estate of the eligible injured person.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04658.htm

The term “race” includes ethnicity for purposes of 42 USC 1981 and Title VII

The term “race” includes ethnicity for purposes of 42 USC 1981 and Title VII

Village of Freeport and Andrew Hardwick v Barrella, USCA, Second Circuit, No. 14-2270-cv (L) et. al.

Christopher Barrella sued the Village of Freeport and its former mayor, Andrew Hardwick, [Hardwick] alleging Hardwick violated 42 USC 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, and the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law §290. Barrella alleged that Hardwick had not appointed him chief of police because Barrella was a white Italian-American, and that Hardwick had instead appointed a less-qualified Hispanic candidate to the position. A federal district court judge denied Hardwick’s motions for summary judgment as a matter of law. After a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of Barrella.

Hardwick appealed the decision. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court insofar as it denied Hardwick's motions for summary judgment.

The Circuit Court explained that longstanding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents indicated that "race" includes ethnicity for purposes of  42 USC 1981, so that discrimination based on “Hispanic ancestry” or lack thereof constitutes racial discrimination under that statute. Further, said the court, "race" should be defined the same way for purposes of Title VII.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court reject Hardwick's argument that an employer who promotes a white Hispanic candidate over a white non-Hispanic candidate cannot have engaged in racial discrimination and affirmed the judgment of the District Court insofar as it denied Hardwick's' motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

However, the Circuit Court ruled that the District Court erred in permitting "lay opinion testimony" that speculated as to Hardwick's reasons for not appointing Barrella. This, said the court, was a violation of Rule 701(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and because this case was factually close, this did not constitute “a harmless error.”

The judgment of the District Court was vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial consistent with the consistent with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://casetext.com/case/vill-of-freeport-andrew-hardwick-v-barrella

Exhausting administrative remedies

Exhausting administrative remedies
Ross v Blake, USSC, Docket No. 15-339

This decision by the United States Supreme Court considered an appeal involving the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act [PLRA], 42 USC 1997e(a) requirement that an inmate exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit. The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s “unwritten 'special circumstances’ exception” to the exhaustion of administrative remedy as being inconsistent with the text and history of the PLRA,” explaining that “[m]andatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA foreclose judicial discretion.”*

Of special interest to public employers and employees not operating in a penal environment was the Supreme Court’s observation that “that there are certain circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not available.”

The court then provided the following examples of an administrative procedure being illusory or unavailable:

1. Where the procedure operates as a dead end;

2. Where the appointing authority or the employee organization is unable or consistently unwilling to provide relief;

3. Where the administrative scheme is so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use; and

4. Where a grievance process is rendered unavailable should an appointing authority thwarts the employee from taking advantage of it through misrepresentation, or intimidation. 

Courts, as a general rule, will not consider lawsuits filed by public employees protesting some administrative determination unless the individual has exhausted his or her administrative remedies. The major exception to this rule: any attempt to exhaust the available administrative remedy would constitute an exercise in futility. Typically the courts apply this exception when it is decided that the administrative decision "is a foregone conclusion."

The exhaustion rule, however, is not inflexible and need not be followed where an agency's action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power [Watergate II Apartments v Buffalo Sewer, 46 NY2d 52] or where it is alleged that the administrative agency or process followed by the administrative agency violates the individual's constitutional rights to due process [Levine v Board of Education, 173 A.D.2d 619].

However, questions involving proper statutory interpretation and the reasonable interpretation of an agency's own regulations must first be raised within the agency's own administrative review process before being presented to the courts [Crumb v Broadnax, 178 A.D.2d 781].

An employee’s withdrawnal of his or her grievance has the effect of exhausting his or her administrative remedy. [Vega v Department of Correctional Services, 186 A.D.2d 340].

In Wilbur v Town of Rockland, 53 F.3d 542, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, said an employee suing the Town for alleged violations of her freedom of association under the First Amendment pursuant to 42 USC 1983 was not required to exhaust her state administrative remedies as a prerequisite to commencing a federal action, the general rule being that federal courts may not require exhaustion of administrative remedies as a "condition precedent" to 42 USC 1983 litigation.

From time to time courts are asked to settle questions about which officials or bodies have "primary jurisdiction" and should be turned to first to resolve employment disputes. In Hessney v Tarrytown Public Schools, 228 A.D.2d 954, we learn that the Commissioner of Education "is uniquely suited" to resolve questions concerned with the similarity of the duties of teaching positions and failing to initially submit the issue to him could be fatal to an individual's claim.

In any event, in cases in which the employee is alleged to have failed to exhaust his or her administrative remedy,” the employee typically has the burden of proving his or her seeking a judicial remedy falls within the ambit of one or more of the “exceptions to the rule,” frequently a difficult task.

* The court explained that PLRA contains its own, textual exception to mandatory exhaustion. Under §1997e(a), the exhaustion requirement hinges on the "availab[ility]" of administrative remedies. Thus there must exhaust available remedies, but one need not exhaust unavailable ones.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://casetext.com/case/ross-v-blake

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending June 11, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending June 11, 2016

Click on text highlighted in color to access the entire report

New YorkState Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits have been issued:

City University of New York (CUNY): Medgar Evers College: Controls Over Bank Accounts (2015-S-92)

CUNY officials provided auditors with a list of 24 bank accounts at Medgar Evers. Fourteen accounts were opened after CUNY’s bank authorization policy was established in 2008. However, CUNY did not have any of the required notification forms for these accounts. Additionally, auditors found an additional two accounts that were not on the list. These findings point to weaknesses in the monitoring of bank accounts, which increase the risk that college personnel could conduct transactions using unauthorized accounts. Of 54 payments (totaling $810,608) paid from six selected bank accounts, 26 (totaling $118,782) were either improper or were unsupported. 

Higher Education Services Corporation: Tuition Assistance Program Wagner College (2015-T-3)

Auditors determined Wagner was overpaid $97,947 because school officials incorrectly certified students as eligible for state financial aid awards. Incorrect certifications include eight students who received awards but had not met the good academic standing requirements and three students who were not enrolled at Wagner for the semesters in question. 

Higher Education Services Corporation: Tuition Assistance Program at Vaughn College (2015-T-6)

Vaughn's certification procedures for state financial aid substantially complied with the governing law and regulations. Auditors found that of the 50 awards tested, only two (totaling $3,945) were certified in error. As such, auditors concluded there is a low risk that a significant number of students certified for state financial aid were not eligible for awards. 

Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS): Contracted Programs With Puerto Rican Organization to Motivate, Enlighten and Serve Addicts Inc. (PROMESA) (2015-S-24)

Auditors found that despite two relatively recent audits by OASAS, claims submitted by PROMESA for the two years ended June 30, 2014 continued to include costs that were not valid or consistent with state guidelines. PROMESA reported about $23 million in costs associated with contracted OASAS programs during the period. The audit examined about $9 million of these expenses and identified problems with over 90 percent – $8.2 million. 

Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS): Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program: Provider Claiming of Depreciation Expenses (2015-S-84) 
OASAS is not effectively monitoring Drug and Alcohol Treatment program contracts to ensure provider claims do not include state reimbursement for depreciation expenses. Auditors found providers inappropriately claimed $2.7 million in depreciation expenses, of which $2.2 million was funded by OASAS. Also, OASAS could potentially use the remaining $454,238 for inappropriate increases to providers’ future program budgets. 

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP): Controls Over Cash Advance Accounts (Follow-Up) (2016-F-3)

An initial audit report issued in December 2014 found OPRHP advance accounts received little scrutiny and made recommendations to improve internal controls over these accounts. In a follow-up report, auditors determined the agency made significant progress in correcting the problems identified in the initial report. Of the eight prior audit recommendations, seven have been implemented and one recommendation has not been implemented. 

State Education Department (SED): League for the Handicapped, Compliance with the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2015-S-89)

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, auditors identified $4,354 in costs that were charged to the preschool special education programs that did not comply with SED’s requirements for reimbursement. The non-reimbursable costs included insufficiently documented expenses, costs for services that were not directly related to the programs, unallowable working capital interest and credit card late fees.

State University of New York (SUNY): Compliance With Payment Card Industry Standards (2015-S-65)

SUNY schools were generally knowledgeable about PCI compliance and the need to protect credit card data from unauthorized access; however, auditors identified areas where system and data controls need to be improved to meet certain compliance standards. Among a range of issues, auditors identified weaknesses in the completeness of the systems’ component inventories, network segmentation, the resolution of compliance deficiencies and the oversight of affiliated campus organizations. 

State University of New York Downstate Medical Center: Review of Collecto Inc. (2016-BSE4-02)

Auditors examined Downstate contracts with Collecto for debt collection services. Under the $2.5 million contract, Downstate pays Collecto various commission rates based on the amount collected by account type and size. Of the $29,288 examined, auditors found overpayments of $14,355 and additional potential overpayments of $2,664. The remaining $12,269 was appropriate and properly supported.

Department of Taxation and Finance: Personal Income Tax Refunds (2015-1A-001)

The department processes all New York state personal income tax returns. During the audit period, the department processed almost 7.5 million refunds totaling over $8.6 billion. From this population, auditors examined 31,978 refunds totaling almost $516.5 million. Of those, auditors identified and returned 11,469 questionable refunds totaling about $53.3 million.

New York’s Freedom of Information Law does not permit the custodian of the records to routinely charge for employee time spent searching for documents responsive to a FOIL request

New York’s Freedom of Information Law does not permit the custodian of the records to routinely charge for employee time spent searching for documents responsive to a FOIL request

Ripp v Town of Oyster Bay, 2016 NY Slip Op 04226, Appellate Division, Second Department

In a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel the production of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law Article 6) [FOIL], the Town of Oyster Bay [Town], appealed that part of the Supreme Court decision that barred the Town requiring the petitioner, Robert O. Ripp, to prepay certain estimated costs as a condition of producing the requested documents for inspection.

Ripp had requested that the Town make certain documents available for inspection pursuant to FOIL. The Town conditioned the disclosure of the documents upon Ripp prepaying $1,920 to cover the estimated costs associated with producing the documents.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s order explaining that:

1. FOIL requires state and municipal agencies to make available for public inspection and copying all records, subject to certain exemptions;

2. Where an agency conditions disclosure upon the prepayment of costs or refuses to disclose records except upon prepayment of costs, it has the burden of "articulating a particularized and specific justification" for the imposition of those fees;

3. The agency must demonstrate that the fees to be imposed are specifically authorized by the cost provisions of FOIL; and

4. The custodian of the records must meet this burden "in more than just a plausible fashion."

In this case the Appellate Division found that the Town had failed to satisfy these requirements, noting that the only evidence in the record justifying the imposition of costs was a letter to Ripp stating that it would take a Town employee a minimum of eight weeks, at $240 per week, to review 2,500-3,000 files to identify the records available for inspection.

While an agency may charge for employee time spent extracting or segregating data from an electronic database, the court distinguished electronic “records” from “hardcopy” records and explained that FOIL does not permit an agency to charge for employee time spent searching for paper documents.*

The Appellate Division opined that the Town had failed to demonstrate that the prepayment costs it demanded were properly based upon employee time related to retrieving electronic files, rather than a manual search of hard copies for which the Town's recoupment costs are limited to 25¢ per photocopy.**

Accordingly, said the court, the Supreme Court properly directed the Town to make the paper records or documents sought available for Ripp’s inspection without the prepayment of the estimated costs.

* Weslowski v Vanderhoef, 98 AD3d 1123, provides a comprehensive review of the elements involved in the custodian of the records lawfully requiring payments attributed to complying with a FOIL request.

**The person requesting the documents may avoid this $.25 per page charge by simply inspecting the documents "on site" rather than ordering photocopies of the documents of interest.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04226.htm