Appealing a federal district court's dismissal of civil rights complaints brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

In this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Petitioner challenged a federal district court’s dismissal of her claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the State University of New York at Albany [SUNY Albany] and several named SUNY Albany administrators [Administrators].  The district court had granted SUNY's motion to dismiss the Petitioner's lawsuit, ruling that SUNY Albany is immune from suit, that Petitioner’s due process claims could have been raised in an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court, and that Petitioner failed to plausibly allege an unlawful conspiracy, an equal protection violation, or a Title VI violation.

The district court did permit Petitioner to amend only her equal protection claim but Petitioner failed to file an amended complaint. The district court subsequently dismissed her equal protection claim with prejudice. Petitioner appealed the district court's ruling to U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals [Appeals], Second Circuit.

Noting that pro se submissions are construed liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggest, Appeals observed that "a pro se complaint must nonetheless contain factual allegations sufficient to meet the plausibility requirement, citing Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116.

Addressing Petitioner's "Constitutional Claims", Appeals concluded that the district court correctly held that her constitutional claims against SUNY Albany are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits by citizens against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. Here, said Appeals, “For Eleventh Amendment purposes, SUNY is an integral part of the government of the State of New York and when it is sued the State is the real party” and New York has not waived its immunity, nor has Congress abrogated it.

As to Petitioner argument that New York waived its sovereign immunity in §8 of the Court of Claims Act, Appeals explained that the §8 waiver Plaintiff relied upon applies only to actions against the State in the Court of Claims and thus the district court correctly dismissed Petitioner’s claims against SUNY Albany.

Turning to Petitioner’s due process claim, Appeals opined that the district court correctly held that Petitioner received due process in the face of allegedly random and unauthorized state conduct. Petitioner. said Appeals, "apparently availed herself of SUNY Albany’s internal complaint procedures" and could also have commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court to challenge the denial of her grade-change program related request and her dismissal from the program. This satisfied "the requirements of due process" and thus Petitioner failed to state a claim.

Considering Petitioner’s equal protection claim, Appeal's decision notes that "To state an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her membership in a protected class, such as race or national origin. Here, however, Appeals held that the district court correctly dismissed Petitioner’s equal protection claim as Petitioner failed "to plausibly allege that she was treated differently based on her membership in a protected class" and failed to allege the existence of similarly situated comparators.

Although Petitioner contended that SUNY Albany's treatment of her violated SUNY Albany policy, she does not adequately allege or argue that Administrators treated other students differently. Moreover, Appeals said this conclusory allegation fails to establish that the other students were “similarly situated” or, for a class-of-one claim, “prima facie identical.” Accordingly, Petitioner’s equal protection claim was properly dismissed.

Appeals also rejected the arguments advanced by Petitioner based on membership in "a protected class," her allegations that her treatment was motivated by discriminatory animus, her intellectual property claim and her Title VI claim. In addition Appeals found that the district court correctly dismissed Petitioner’s § 983 conspiracy claim, citing Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324–25 and that "conclusory, vague, or general allegations” that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy fail to state a claim.

Finally, Appeals held that the district court did not err by denying Petitioner leave to amend as a district court properly denies leave to amend if the amendment would be futile. Here, said Appeals, "the existence of Article 78 relief barred her procedural due process" and her equal protection claims. Similarly, any amendment to Petitioner’s intellectual property, conspiracy, and Title VI claims would have been futile for the reasons stated above. As far as Petitioner’s challenge to the district court’s later dismissal of her equal protection claim with prejudice, "she failed to file an amended complaint as directed by the district court, and therefore failed to demonstrate that further opportunity to amend would not have been futile."

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's ruling.

University of Alabama asks employees to sign confidentiality agreement

On October 8, 2021, Inside Higher Ed posted on item on the Internet written by Emma Whitford reporting that the "U of Alabama Asks Employees to Sign Confidentiality Agreement."

Click HERE to access the Internet posting of this item.

Audits and reports issued during the week ending October 8, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

On October 8, 2021, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued.

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

 STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.

 

Department of Civil Service: New York State Health Insurance Program – Payments by CVS Health for Pharmacy Services for Ineligible Members (2020-S-17) From Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2019, auditors identified 132,051 claims, totaling $30,695,221, that were paid for pharmacy services provided during periods when members were not eligible. Further, Civil Service paid CVS Health $170,359 in administrative fees for processing these claims.  

 

Department of Civil Service:  New York State Health Insurance Program – Payments by UnitedHealthcare for Medical/Surgical Services for Ineligible Members (2020-S-34) Auditors identified $5.7 million that United paid for members who were not eligible for Empire Plan coverage. The improper payments occurred because the member was retroactively disenrolled ($4.6 million), or the claims were paid for services that occurred either before a member was enrolled or after United was notified the member was disenrolled ($1.1 million).

 

State Board of Elections (BOE): Use of Federal Funding for Election Technology and Security (2020-S-18) Generally, the BOE has utilized available funding from its Help America Vote Act Election Security Grant to enhance the state’s election technology and infrastructure. Specifically, the BOE has planned for and spent funds for the activities described in its cybersecurity plan. Although a portion of the funds remains unspent as of February 2021, the BOE has designated the remaining funds for ongoing, multi-year initiatives that continue to address constantly evolving cybersecurity threats and enhance election infrastructure and security.  

 

Department of Health (DOH): Oversight of Registration, Licensing, and Inspection of Radioactive Materials (RAM) Facilities and Radiation Equipment Facilities (2019-S-64) DOH completed 94% of RAM facility and radiation equipment facility inspections on time; however, it completed 44% of those inspections beyond the established 1- to 5-year inspection time frames by relying on a buffer intended to allow for more flexibility and extensions to the inspection intervals for staff time and travel. DOH did not complete all license actions within its 1-year benchmark. For example, as of July 20, 2020, DOH had not completed 55 licensing actions that were beyond the 1-year benchmark. This could potentially jeopardize the quality of the department’s licensing program, which can have a direct bearing on public health and safety, as well as security. 

 

Department of Health (DOH): Medicaid Program – Claims Processing Activity April 1, 2020 Through Sept. 30, 2020 (2020-S-22)

The audit identified over $9.7 million in improper Medicaid payments that require DOH’s prompt attention, including: $4.5 million paid for an incorrect retroactive rate adjustment; and $2.1 million paid for inpatient claims that were billed at a higher level of care than what was actually provided. By the end of the audit fieldwork, about $6.8 million of the improper payments had been recovered. 

 

Department of Health: Medicaid Program – Cost Saving Opportunities on Payments of Medicare Part C Claims (2020-S-65) New York’s current Medicaid payment rules for Medicare Part C cost-sharing liabilities compared to the allowable alternatives have significantly different costs to the Medicaid program. If New York Medicaid had limited its cost-sharing so that the total payment (Medicare’s payment plus what Medicaid was billed for the copayment or coinsurance) was no more than the typical Medicaid fee, it could have saved over $419 million from July 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2020. Other states already use this approach, and it is similar to how New York Medicaid currently pays Medicare Part B cost-sharing. Using this reimbursement formula, auditors estimate the state could save over $122 million annually. 

 

State Education Department (SED): Review of Advance Contract Payments (2019-BSE2-01) For the period of July 2012 through July 2018, SED made 216 advance payments totaling $546,625 to 113 contractors whose 25 percent advance payment was the only expenditure made under the contract prior to its expiration. These contacts had a total value of nearly $2.2 million. Auditors selected 13 contracts valued at $224,000 ($56,000 in advance payments) for review and found SED did not obtain any reports from the 13 contractors documenting how the advance funds were expended. As a result, SED needed to improve its contract monitoring to ensure contractors expended advanced funds in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contracts. 

 

State Education Department (SED): Westchester County Chapter NYSARC Inc. (WARC) – Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-27) WARC is an SED-approved, non-profit special education provider located in Westchester County, serving students from Westchester and Putnam counties. Among other programs, WARC provides preschool special education services to children with disabilities who are 3 and 4 years of age. WARC is reimbursed for these services through rates set by SED. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, auditors identified $49,605 in ineligible costs reported by WARC for reimbursement.  

 

Workers' Compensation Board: Assessment of Costs to Administer the Workers' Compensation Program for the Three State Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 2020 (2021-M-1) Auditors performed certain procedures, which were agreed to by the board, to ascertain the expenses it incurred in administering the program for the three State Fiscal Years ended March 31, 2020. On average, the board incurred $207 million in expenses, including about $6 million attributable to administering self-insurance, to administer the program for each of the three years. 

 

Office of General Services (OGS): Compliance With Executive Order 95 (Open Data) (Follow-Up) (2021-F-12) An audit covering the period March 11, 2013 through Dec. 6, 2019 found OGS had taken steps to meet the requirements of EO 95; however, certain aspects of the order were not fully addressed and there was limited assurance OGS provided a complete catalogue of its publishable state data or accompanying schedules for making that data public, as required. In a follow-up, auditors found OGS made limited progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report.

Evaluating jurisdiction of courts to address claims of national origin discrimination, violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction

Supreme Court granted New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance's [ODTA] CPLR §211 motion to dismiss the Petitioner's claims against it under the New York City Human Rights Law [City HRL] alleging national origin discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law [State HRL], and for alleged violation of Civil Service Law §75-b.

The Appellate Division sustained the dismissal on the ground of sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Jattan v Queens Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 64 AD3d 540. Further, opined the court, Petitioner failed to identify "any independent duty on the part of [ODTA's Deputy Commissioner] to him, outside of the City HRL, which could serve as a vehicle for holding the State "secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior".]

Addressing Petitioner's allegations of violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's action, explaining that "claims under CSL 75-b are committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims," citing Article VI, §9 and the Court of Claims Act §§ 8-9. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the lower court "properly severed and dismissed that cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

With respect to Petitioner's cause of action alleging national origin discrimination against defendants OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner, the Appellate Division ruled "[l]iberally construing the complaint, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference," Petitioner's complaint asserted that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of a long chain of discrimination against [Petitioner] and condoned it." 

Further, the Appellate Division said "[i]t can also be inferred that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of [Petitioner's] national origin, and condoned the continuing discrimination and concurrent retaliation against him, culminating in the ultimate adverse action of termination of employment."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division reinstated the amended complaint's State HRL cause of action for national origin discrimination against OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner and the accompanying aiding and abetting discrimination claim against the individual defendants.

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

Internal Revenue Service's Fiscal Year 2022 Program Letter announced

The Tax Exempt & Government Entities (TE/GE) Fiscal Year 2022 Program Letter (PDF) lists the Internal Revenue Service's priorities for the new fiscal year. 

In addition IRS reported that it will also use its Compliance Program and Priorities webpage to provide information about additional priorities as they are launched.  

IRS listed the following as its Fiscal Year 2022 compliance program and priorities align with the IRS Strategic Goals:

• Strengthen Compliance Activities
• Improve Operational Efficiencies
• Maintain a Taxpayer-Focused Organization
• Ensure Awareness and Collective Understanding
• Leverage Technology and Data Analytics
• Develop Our Workforce

Further, IRS plans to release a summary of its Fiscal Year 2021 accomplishments during the first quarter Fiscal Year 2022, as well as its annual program (or work plan) and accomplishment letters for previous years.

The effective date of a final administrative determination triggers the running of the statute of limitations to challenge the determination

A New York City police officer [Officer] retired from the New York City Police Department [Department] while serving "without firearms privileges." Officer subsequently filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to annul the Department's issuing Officer a retirement identification card containing the words "no firearms." Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and Officer appealed.

Unanimously affirming the Supreme Court's ruling, the Appellate Division said that the Department "reached a final and binding determination on May 31, 2018," the date on which Officer, then on modified duty status, retired from the Department and the date on which the Department issued Officer a retirement identification card bearing the words "no firearms." In addition, the Department declined to provide Officer with "a good guy letter" that was necessary for Officer to obtain a firearms license.*

The New York City Police Department License Division's "INSTRUCTIONS FOR NYPD RETIREES" states: "A retired law enforcement handgun license will not be issued to you if your [sic] did not receive a Pistol License Inquiry Response form (PD 643-155) a.k.a “good-guy letter, of [sic] if your ID card is stamped “No Firearms.” To obtain a retired law enforcement license, you must have the restriction lifted prior to receiving a license". 

Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. Thus, the court concluded, the four-month statute of limitations began to run on May 31, 2018, and Officer's petition, filed in September 2019, was untimely.

Another impediment to Officer's right to challenge the administrative decision was that, as Supreme Court correctly determined, Officer's post-retirement letter "was merely a request for reconsideration of the agency's determination, and thus did not extend the statute of limitations."

* The decision noted that the Department's policy of declining to issue a "good guy letter" in the event an officer retires without firearms privileges.

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Municipality's motion for summary judgment based its claim of qualified immunity rejected by United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

In this appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Municipal Defendants [Defendants] ask the Appellate court to "exercise pendent jurisdiction" over the matter and reverse the district court’s denial of Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and indemnification, claiming that the Defendants were entitled to "qualified immunity."

The Circuit Court said that public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity barring §1983 claims unless such officials “violated a statutory or constitutional right” and that right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct, citing Ricciuti v. Gyzenis, 834 F.3d 162.

The Circuit Court said it had jurisdiction to review an "interlocutory order denying qualified immunity so long as defendants pursue the appeal ‘on stipulated facts, or on the facts that the plaintiff alleges are true, or on the facts favorable to the plaintiff that the trial judge concluded the jury might find.’” In contrast, the Circuit Court said it did not have jurisdiction to review a denial of qualified immunity to the extent it was based on a district court’s finding that there is enough evidence in the record to create a genuine issue as to factual questions that are material to the resolution of the Defendants' qualified immunity claim.

In this instance the Circuit Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the federal law claims at issue here because the Defendant police officers’ qualified immunity defense turns on disputed fact and the Defendants have not shown that they would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law under Plaintiff’s version of the facts.

Rejecting  Defendants' argument that the Defendant's police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's false arrest claim and her equal protection claim, the court said that the resolution of these claims turn on the sufficiency of such claims to create an issue for the jury, "a contention that ... cannot[be] entertain on interlocutory review."

The Circuit Court of Appeals then explained that having concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the question of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's federal law claims, it also lack any basis to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Click HERE to access the text of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.

Free webinar on Payroll Reconciliation offered by the Internal Revenue Service

The IRS invites NYPPL readers to click registerto sign up for a free webinar on Payroll Reconciliation hosted by the Office of Federal, State and Local Governments on October 14, 2021 at 2:00 PM (ET).

This webinar will cover when your payroll should be reconciled and what payroll amounts to use. It will also explain reconciling gross payroll to taxable income for federal income tax and FICA.

 

Claimant found ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she had resigned from her position without good cause

In this appeal the Appellate Division addressed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that rejected of a claim for unemployment insurance benefits filed by a probationary teacher [Claimant].

Claimant had been appointed as a probationary teacher effective December 11, 2019 and on January 29, 2020, emailed her resignation from her position to her school principal indicating that January 31, 2020 would be her last day of without stating any reason for her action. In her application for unemployment insurance benefits Claimant said that she had resigned from her position for safety reasons because she had been caught in the middle of an incident involving two students in which she had been "jostled around" in mid-December 2019.

The Appellate Division's decision reports that Claimant had been appointed as a probationary teacher effective December 11, 2019 and on January 29, 2020, emailed her resignation from her position to her school principal indicating that January 31, 2020 would be her last day of without stating any reason for her action. Claimant subsequently applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Department of Labor held that Claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause.

Claimant requested a hearing in the course of which she testified that she resigned for safety reasons in response to a "verbal fight between students in mid-December 2019 and the general misbehavior of students" and that security had responded to the incident and that she had filed an incident report with school administrators. In contrast to Claimant's testimony, the principal and one of the assistant principals testified that they never received an incident report nor was any other administrator or security personnel ever informed of a December 2019 incident involving a physical confrontation between students and a teacher, "which would have triggered certain protocols and student suspensions."*

The Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] sustained the Department of Labor's determination, discrediting Claimant's testimony that she feared for her safety and filed an incident report, ruled that Claimant did not have good cause for resigning from her position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] affirmed the ALJ's decision and Claimant appealed the Board's ruling.

The Appellate Division, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that Claimant had "voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause," dismissed Claimant's appeal. The court, citing Matter of Vargas [Mason ESC LLC-Commissioner of Labor, 185 AD3d 1339, explained "Whether a claimant has voluntarily left his or her employment without good cause is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence."

Considering the conflicting testimony and the fact that Claimant waited six weeks after the December 2019 incident to resign, the Appellate Division opined that the question as to whether Claimant genuinely feared for her safety, officially reported the incident or sought assistance to address problems in her classroom "presented a credibility issue that the Board was free to resolve in the employer's favor." In the words of the court, it found "no basis upon which to disturb the Board's finding that [Claimant] voluntarily left her employment without good cause while continuing work was available, and she was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits."**

* The Appellate Division's decision indicates although Claimant continued to work in her position until the end of January 2020, she did not attempt to discuss the incident with the school principal or assistant principals, nor did she file a grievance with her union.

** The court also held that the Board's determination that Claimant received benefits to which she was not entitled, thereby allowing for recoverable overpayments, was also supported by substantial evidence.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

An injury resulting from the failure to follow proper safety protocols held "sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent the duties of the position"

A member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System applying for accidental disability retirement benefits has the burden of establishing that the injury he sustained during the incident giving rise to the disability in question was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

Citing Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 57 NY2d 1010, the Appellate Division, in the instant appeal challenging the denial of a firefighter's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, said that the Court of Appeals has defined an accident as "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact."

As the court held in Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 30 NY3d 674, "an injury-causing event is accidental when it is sudden, unexpected and not a risk of the work performed, but the focus of the determination must be on the precipitating cause of [the] injury, rather than on the petitioner's job assignment."

In this appeal the Appellate Division considered a number of incidents suffered by a firefighter [Petitioner] at various time in the course of his performing firefighting duties cited his application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner's application was initially denied, which decision was upheld by a Hearing Officer, who concluded that none of the incidents described by Petitioner constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's decision, and Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's determination.

The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller's ruling with respect to all but one incident ... an incident in which Petitioner "was struck by the master stream of water while fighting a fire inside an automotive garage."

Petitioner testified that the master stream of water that struck him and resulted in his disability:

a. was then being pumped at an average rate of 1,500 gallons per minute;

b. it was against standard operating procedure to spray a master stream of water into a burning structure while firefighters were inside because the force could be lethal; and

c. he had no warning that the master stream of water was being utilized to fight the fire until he "actually saw it a split second before getting hit."

The Appellate Division, noting that there "is no record support for the Hearing Officer's finding that [Petitioner] knew in advance that a master stream was being operated ... such that he could have left the building," concluded that "[u]nder these circumstances, the event that precipitated [Petitioner's] injuries was sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in [Petitioner's] regular duties as the incident would not have occurred if proper safety protocols had been followed."

Accordingly, the court opined that this event constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, thus entitling Petitioner to accidental disability retirement benefits and ruled  "that part of the [Comptroller's] determination finding otherwise must be annulled" and the matter remitted to Comptroller "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision".

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

Audits and reports issued during the week ending October 1, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending October 1, 2021. 

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

MUNICIPAL AUDITS

Town of Lyndon – Town Clerk’s Collections (Cattaraugus County) The clerk generally recorded, remitted and reported collections accurately and in a timely manner. Collections were deposited accurately but the clerk did not always make deposits in a timely manner. Collections totaling $7,050 or 49% of the collections recorded from Jan. 1, 2020 through May 6, 2021 were not deposited within three days, as required. The board did not perform an annual audit of 2020 records, as required.

Town of Machias – Supervisor’s Financial Duties (Cattaraugus County) The supervisor did not adequately perform his financial duties and cannot provide support for almost $1.6 million in interfund loans. Although interfund loans must be repaid by the close of each fiscal year, interfund loans have grown from $246,280 in 2015 to almost $1.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2019. The supervisor also did not provide adequate oversight of the bookkeeper. The supervisor did not provide detailed monthly financial reports to the board. Auditors found the supervisor did not review monthly bank reconciliations. In addition, the supervisor did not prepare and file the annual financial reports for 2019 and 2020 with the Office of the State Comptroller in a timely manner.

Town of Stanford – Financial Management (Dutchess County) The board did not properly manage the town’s financial condition and did not adopt realistic budgets. The board adopted an unbalanced 2020 budget that was missing information and misleading, which resulted in a 58% decrease in real property taxes. The board also adopted a 2021 budget with a $749,159 increase in the tax levy over the prior year and levied more taxes than necessary to fund general fund operations. In addition, the board exceeded its fund balance policy limit by $645,366. 

OTHER REPORTS

On October 1, 2021, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Madison County District Attorney William Gabor and New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen announced that a second former state police mechanic [Mechanic #2] has pleaded guilty to corrupting the government in the third degree, a felony, and petit larceny, a misdemeanor.  At the time of his plea, he paid back $12,865 in restitution and was placed on interim probation.

This is the second guilty plea that has resulted from the Comptroller's and the District Attorney's joint investigation.    

Mechanic #2 was found to be breaking the law and will be held fully accountable. One of two non-sworn civilian employees responsible for maintaining police vehicles, Mechanic #2 he was convicted of ordering auto parts and tools for personal use on the state police-paid account at United Auto Supply.

DiNapoli’s analysis of thousands of United Auto Supply invoices found that between April 2015 and October 2020, there were over $54,000 in inappropriate purchases on the state police account.

Earlier another civilian mechanic [Mechanic #1] pleaded guilty to felony corrupting the government in the third degree and was sentenced to interim felony probation. As part of his plea, Mechanic #1 paid back $20,000. He is due back in court for sentencing in December.

State police said they recovered more than $4,800 worth of state funded auto supplies, tools and parts at Mechanic #2's home.

Mechanic #2 retired during the investigation and was not employed with the state police at the time of his arrest. He had been employed by the state police for at least 30 years.   

Mechanic #2 appeared before Judge Patrick O’Sullivan in Madison County Court. He is due back in court on Dec. 2, 2021.

Amendments to Education Law §310 procedures for submitting appeals to the Commissioner seeking for the removal of school officers proposed

The proposed action would amend Part 276 and §277.1 of Title 8 NYCRR pursuant to Education Law, §§101, 207, 305, 310 and 311 with respect to Education Law §310 regarding appeals to the Commissioner and the initiation of proceedings seeking the removal of school officers.

NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

The text of the proposed rule amendments and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from Kirti Goswami, NYS Education Department, Office of Counsel, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 112EB, Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@nysed.gov.

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Julia Patane, NYS Education Department, Office of Counsel, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 112EB, Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: REGCOMMENTS@nysed.gov.

Public comment will be received until 45 days after publication of this notice. [Published in the NYS Register on September 29, 2021].