Former treasurer of the Essex County Agricultural Society and former Willsboro town clerk/tax collector, pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $90,000 in funds from the society and the town

On May 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Franklin County District Attorney Elizabeth Crawford and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that Bridget Brown, the former treasurer of the Essex County Agricultural Society and former Willsboro town clerk/tax collector, pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $90,000 in funds from the society and the town.

“Bridget Brown exploited the trust of her community and used her two positions to enrich herself at taxpayer expense,” DiNapoli said. “My thanks to Franklin County District Attorney Crawford and Superintendent James for their partnership in fighting public corruption and holding Bridget Brown accountable.”

The Franklin County District Attorney’s Office served as special prosecutor, with Executive Assistant District Attorney Alyxandra Stanczak assigned.

“Thanks to the Comptroller’s Office, especially the forensic analysts and the attorneys who provided their time and expertise through the investigation, indictment, and in preparation for trial,” Crawford said. “As public officials ourselves, we understand the trust placed in government organizations. We are proud to uphold our oaths to bring a just result to this case — holding Bridget Brown accountable for her betrayal of the public trust when she used her position as tax assessor and town clerk to steal from the taxpayers of the Town of Willsboro. Ms. Brown also financially decimated the Essex County Fair, having now been convicted of stealing over $50,000 from that organization. The Fair is a summer destination for the community and by the community. The fair has thankfully been able to persist despite Ms. Brown’s theft. As a part of her negotiated plea agreement and her conditions of probation, Ms. Brown will be required to pay full restitution back to the Town and the Fair.”

“Ms. Brown violated the public trust by disregarding the law and stealing funds she was not entitled to,” James said. “We will continue to aggressively investigate any case that involves public corruption. I want to commend our State Police members, the Comptroller’s Office, and Franklin County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance in making sure she will no longer be able to take advantage of those who put their trust in her.”

The Essex County Agricultural Society is a non-profit organization whose mission is to encourage and promote agriculture in young children and adults through the Essex County Fair. Brown worked for the society from 2013 to 2019. She also separately served as Willsboro town clerk/tax collector from 2014 to 2021, having lost election in 2021.

Investigators found that while employed with the society, Brown overpaid herself and made unauthorized ATM withdrawals and personal purchases using the society’s bank account. She also used $5,300 of society funds to repay a personal loan. To facilitate her theft, she falsified the fair’s business records. She also obtained an unauthorized $20,000 loan on behalf of the fair, which the society’s board was unaware of and did not approve, in order to cover up her theft. In total, she is accused of stealing approximately $60,000 from the society.

In light of her actions as the fair treasurer, an examination was launched into her activities in the Town of Willsboro.  An investigation and forensic audit determined that during Brown’s tenure as town clerk/tax collector, she stole approximately $29,000 from taxes, licenses, and landfill fees by pocketing cash payments rather than depositing the funds into the town’s account. The forensic analysis revealed that on certain days when Brown collected cash for the town there were corresponding nearly identical cash deposits into her personal bank account.  

Brown pled guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in relation to the funds stolen from the fair and grand larceny in the third degree as a crime of public corruption related to the theft from Willsboro before Judge Tatiana Coffinger in Essex County Court. Her sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2025.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by mailing a complaint to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations.

For the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, leaving employment without a firm job offer such as a start date for that new employment, does not constitute leaving for good cause

In this appeal of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, [Board], the Appellate Division sustained the Board's decision disqualifying an applicant [Claimant] for unemployment insurance benefits "because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause".

Claimant had advised her then employer [Employer] that she had been accepted into nursing school and the then Employer told Claimant that although she could not continue in her present full-time position while attending school, a per diem position could be created for her. 

Claimant began classes and was advised by the Employer that it "would need a resignation letter" stating her last day of work. Claimant submitted a letter on September 12, resigning effective September 27, following her use of certain accrued leave. 

Claimant had indicated that she had resigned with the understanding that, "in accordance with the [then Employer's] general policy, the per diem position had to be approved and posted prior to her being able to apply for it, and no set start date or salary for the position had been determined".

Some two weeks after her resignation was effective the per diem position had not yet been posted and Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant received one payment of benefits before the Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. 

At the hearing which followed, the Employer explained that organization-wide delays with getting new positions posted and maintained that Employer was committed to formally hiring Claimant for the per diem role once the administrative process was complete and the position could be posted. 

Ultimately Claimant was formally hired for the per diem position but while the instant appeal to the Appellate Division and the Board application were pending, the Board reopened the matter on its own motion and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision on the merits.

With respect to Claimants appeal to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence". 

Further, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 222 AD3d 1099, explained "It is well established that resigning from a position in order to pursue academic studies, while commendable, constitutes a personal and non-compelling reason for separating from one's employment, disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits".  The Appellate Division's decision then observed that "leaving employment without a firm job offer, most significantly here a start date for that new employment, does not constitute good cause."

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

A member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System must be a bona fide retiree in order to be eligible to receive retirement benefits from the system

The Petitioner in this action appealed the denial of his application for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 service retirement benefits by the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS].

Petitioner worked as a correction officer for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for over 34 years, resigning from that position in April 2021. Petitioner, however, had commenced working for the Granville Central School District as a school bus monitor in March 2021. 

On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed an application with ERS seeking service retirement benefits with the school district pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15, indicating an effective retirement date of May 15, 2021. Petitioner also advised the school district that he was retiring on May 15 "with the intent of continuing [his] employment" with the school district. 

Ultimately Petitioner resigned from his position as a bus monitor on October 15, 2021, for health reasons, but continued to work for the school district as a consultant.

In May 2019, the New York State's Retirement System's Pension Integrity Bureau [Bureau] commenced investigating retirement applications submitted by individuals who had predominantly worked as correction officers but were seeking benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15. In a letter dated February 2, 2022, the Bureau informed Petitioner that, after reviewing his application, he was "not eligible to retire under the article 15 plan as of the effective date of [his] retirement (i.e., May 15, 2021) because [he] did not have a bona fide termination from employment." 

Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer denied Petitioner's application, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had a bona fide termination of his employment. The Comptroller affirmed the Hearing Officer's findings and decision. Petitioner then initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.

The Appellate Division, noting that:

1. "The Comptroller has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence"; and 

 2. The Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 does not define the term "retirement,"; explained it employed the commonly understood meaning of the term, which is "to withdraw from one's position or occupation" or to "conclude one's working or professional career", quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "retirement".

Sustaining the Comptroller's interpretation that an applicant for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 benefits "must demonstrate that he or she actually retired from public service employment in the first instance" and concluding "that it is entirely rational and reasonable for [the Comptroller] to require that such retirement be genuine, i.e., the applicant must demonstrate that there has been a legitimate cessation or termination of employment.

Opining that "... the Comptroller's reasonable interpretation that applicants for Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 benefits demonstrate a legitimate cessation or termination of employment prior to re-employment does not constitute fraud, misrepresentation, deception or similar misconduct in order to implicate the exception allowing the doctrine of estoppel to be invoked against a state agency, held that "substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that [Petitioner] was ineligible for benefits because he did not actually retire from service on May 15, 2021".

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