ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Jun 23, 2025

Employer established there were legitimate, non-discriminatory, reasons supporting its decision to terminate a probationary employee

A New York State Supreme Court had denied, in part, the School District's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division unanimously granted the Defendant's motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint.

Supreme Court had dismissed Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim and a retaliation cause of action, but denied that part of the Defendant's motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's sex discrimination claim. 

However, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court had "properly determine" that Defendant established there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decision to terminate the Plaintiff, a probationary employee, before the end of the Plaintiff's probationary period and that Plaintiff had failed to raise an issue of fact.

The Appellate Division explained that the Defendant had established "the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether [Defendant's] explanations were pretextual" for its decision to terminate Plaintiff and Plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue that Defendant's reasons were false and "that [gender-] motivated discrimination was the real reason" for Defendant's employment decision.

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


Jun 21, 2025

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending June 20, 2025

No-Nonsense Guidance for Lawyers Still Confused About AI is the headline for Rochester Attorney Nicole Black's most recent Daily Record column.  Read the whole entry

New York Reports Mobile ID Gains a Year After Launch New York State’s digital ID program, free and voluntary, continues to grow as more airports and bars accept those forms of identification. Other states are expanding their own mobile ID programs. READ MORE

Building Smarter Traffic Systems New York City DOT replaced its aging traffic network infrastructure with a high-availability, secure communications backbone supporting 14,000 intersections—without disrupting daily operations. This case study details the smart infrastructure strategies that helped the city meet 99.99% uptime, boost system visibility, and win national recognition for innovation in transportation management. DOWNLOAD

Fire Departments Find New Ways of Recruiting Volunteers READ MORE

Guardrails Breached: The New Reality of GenAI-Driven Attacks From vibe hacking to malware development to deepfakes, bad actors are discovering more vulnerabilities to attack generative AI tools while also using AI to launch cyber attacks. READ MORE

California Advances AI-Related ‘No Robo Bosses Act’ A bill is advancing through the California Legislature to address fears that artificial intelligence could soon unfairly deny workers jobs and promotions or lead to punishment and firings. READ MORE

Congress Should Not Block State Action on AI A provision in the federal budget bill would bar states from taking any action on AI. This would derail careful legislation designed to promote the technology while offering needed safeguards.  READ MORE

AI in Government Finance: Seizing the Opportunity Modern finance software programs incorporate Generative AI and agentic AI to boost efficiency, improve service and manage complexity. This paper explains key differences between these technologies and why they become uniquely powerful when combined. DOWNLOAD

How Leading Cities Are Rethinking Data to Tackle Their Toughest Challenges Learn how local governments are tackling big challenges—like homelessness, mental health, and nuisance properties—through smarter data use. This guide breaks down real examples and proven approaches to unifying siloed systems, sharpening resource allocation, and delivering results that residents notice.  DOWNLOAD

Advance your AI transformation through skilling Discover essential AI skills for public servants at the Public Sector Center for Digital Skills. Explore the resources







Jun 20, 2025

NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER DiNAPOLI RELEASES SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

On June 19, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following school district audits on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted in BLUE to access the text of the Comptroller's report

Amani Public Charter School – Purchasing and Claims Approval (Westchester County) Since school officials did not procure goods and services in accordance with the established policy and procedures, there is no assurance that the purchases were made in the most prudent and economical manner without favoritism. Specifically, officials did not use competition for 18 purchases totaling $543,474 out of a sample of 21 totaling $763,413 required by school policy to be competitively purchased. Credit card charges were not supported by documentation, reviewed or approved as required. The director did not approve, and the board treasurer did not review any of the 35 charges tested, totaling $9,126. Also, 28 out of 35 charges (80%) totaling $7,627, were not supported by a receipt, a documented purpose or both. Officials did not use a purchase order for 23 purchases totaling $92,220 out of 24 tested totaling $93,865, as required by school policy. Officials also did not properly segregate procurement responsibilities. Auditors determined that overlapping and conflicting responsibilities enabled two directors to each control all aspects of the procurement process, including initiating a purchase request, approving the purchase, approving the invoice and signing checks for payment.


Sullivan West Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Sullivan County) District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 136 of the 410 (33%) water outlets identified at select areas, which students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets were exempt from sampling and how they would be secured and what remedial actions were planned or enacted.


DeRuyter Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Madison County) District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 38 of the 180 (21%) water outlets identified at select areas, which students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. While the former head of buildings and grounds did have a remedial action plan that showed which water outlets exceeded the lead action level and the remedial actions taken, it did not detail which water outlets they exempted from sampling and how they would be secured against use. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 38 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 112 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 29 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that eight of these 29 outlets (28%) with actionable lead levels were still in service without a test showing they were now below the lead action level or effective controls to prevent them from being used. District officials did not report any results to the local health department as required, including lead action exceedances, and reported results through the DOH’s reporting system 245 days after the required reporting deadline. Additionally, district officials did not have any documentation to support that they notified staff, parents and/or guardians of the test results in writing, as required. Finally, the officials did not post the test results of their potable water outlet sampling on the district’s website.


Island Trees Union Free School District – Inventorying and Monitoring Capital Assets (Nassau County) District officials did not accurately and completely record and account for all capital assets reviewed (i.e., machinery, vehicles, equipment and computers). Additionally, officials have not conducted a physical inventory to properly monitor and account for assets since 2011. Therefore, officials cannot assure taxpayers that all of the district’s capital assets are safe and accounted for, and the district had significant risk for capital assets to be lost, stolen or misused. Auditors found 112 capital assets with an acquisition cost of $60,871 were not recorded on the district’s inventory list. Of the 7,229 capital assets on the district’s active and disposed inventory list, auditors reviewed 254 and found 195 (77%) were not properly accounted for or monitored. Another 21 assets with an acquisition cost of $16,931 and 48 information technology (IT) assets could not be located. The acquisition costs for the 48 IT assets were not recorded or available.


Truxton Academy Charter School – Tuition Billing and Collections (Cortland County) Although school officials accurately billed and collected basic tuition totaling $2.14 million, officials overbilled school districts of residence $84,689 for state aid attributable to students receiving special education services from 2022-23 through 2023-24. These findings occurred because school officials did not follow State Education Department guidance for calculating state aid, did not always maintain necessary documentation to support calculations of the amounts billed or ensure billings were accurate, and did not establish adequate procedures for tuition billing.


Avoca Central School District – Payroll (Steuben County) District officials generally paid employees’ salaries and wages accurately during the period July 1, 2022 through Oct. 10, 2024. Auditors reviewed 35 employees’ salaries and wage payments totaling $417,720 and determined that officials generally paid employees’ salaries and wages accurately during the period. However, auditors determined that district officials did not adequately segregate duties or establish mitigating controls over payroll processing.


Avoca Central School District – Procurement (Steuben County) District officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with the statutory requirements set forth in state law or with the district’s procurement policies and procedures. District officials also did not develop procedures governing the procurement of goods and services not subject to state competitive bidding laws as required by the district’s procurement policy that was last approved by the board in 2017. In addition, district officials did not aggregate purchases to determine whether certain procurements were subject to the competitive bidding requirements set forth in state law.



Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com