Concerning an employee's allegations of having been defamed and, or, subjected to violations of New York State's Labor Law and, or its Civil Service Law, and, or 42 USC §1983 by the employer

Addressing the Petitioner's allegations concerning defamation, the Appellate Division explained:

1. "The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se", citing Greenberg v Spitzer, 155 AD3d 27. 

2. "A statement is defamatory per se if it, among other things, "charges the plaintiff with a serious crime" or "tends to injure the plaintiff in her or his trade, business, or profession", citing Laguerre v Maurice, 192 AD3d 44; 

3. "CPLR 3016(a) requires that [i]n an action for libel or slander, the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint", citing Lemieux v Fox, 135 AD3d 713, [internal quotation marks omitted]). Compliance with this requirement is "strictly enforced" and "[a] cause of action sounding in defamation which fails to comply with these special pleading requirements must be dismissed" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; (see Tsamasiros v Jones, 232 AD3d 816). 

4. "The complaint must set forth the particular words allegedly constituting defamation, and it must also allege the time when, place where, and manner in which the false statement was made, and specify to whom it was made" (see Nofal v Yousef, 228 AD3d 772, [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]);

5. "While the amended complaint set forth allegedly defamatory remarks that the [Defendants] wrote on or about January 17, 2020, it failed to set forth the place where and to whom these remarks were published (see Oluwo v Mills, 228 AD3d 879, 880)." 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that:

a. "Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the Defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se; and 

b. "The cause of action alleging intentional and willful conduct is, in effect, a demand for punitive damages. '[P]unitive damages may be awarded on proof of actual malice' (Gatz v Otis Ford, Inc., 274 AD2d 449, 450; see Liker v Weider, 41 AD3d 438, 439). However, 'New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages' (Gershman v Ahmad, 156 AD3d 868, 868 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and '[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action' (Podesta v Assumable Homes Dev. II Corp., 137 AD3d 767, 770 [internal quotation marks omitted])."

The Appellate Division concluded that as the Defendants "are entitled to dismissal of the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se, they also are entitled to dismissal of the demand for punitive damages."

With respect to the other defenses advanced by the Defendants in the instant action, the Appellate Division held that the allegations in the amended complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action alleging a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b as "Civil Service Law §75-b(2)(a)(ii) provides that adverse employment action may not be taken against a public employee based upon his or her disclosure of information which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action".

Further, the Court found that with respect to the Petitioner's allegation that he was terminated from his employment because of this disclosure, "the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b." However, the Appellate Division noted that at the time this action was commenced, the statute of limitations for a Civil Service Law §75-b cause of action was one year. Thus, only so much of the cause of action as related to the employer's alleged retaliatory act of terminating the Petitioner's employment on March 13, 2020, may be considered timely. 

With respect to Labor Law §215, The Appellate Division pointed out that this provision of law does "not apply to employees of the state or any municipal subdivisions or departments thereof".  As the Petitioner alleged that the employer was a "municipal corporation," he was a municipal employee while employed by the employer and was not protected under Labor Law §215. Likewise, Petitioner cannot maintain a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §193 against the Defendants, as governmental agencies are exempt from this statute as well.

Addressing 42 USC §1983, the Appellate Division observed that two essential elements must be present: (1) the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

However, Petitioner, an "At-will employee", did not have a property interest in his continued employment. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging a violation of 42 USC §1983."

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

Merriam-Webster defines jobbery as "the improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain".

Click HERE to access New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli's press release concerning a "jobbery" dated October 28, 2025.

Government and school audits issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

On October 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

Port Ewen Fire District – Financial Management (Ulster County) The board and officials did not properly manage the district’s financial operations, including ensuring that the district treasurer maintained adequate accounting records. In addition, the board did not annually review the district’s investment policy and seek legal investment options that align with the district’s investment needs and benefit taxpayers and which may have resulted in greater investment earnings. For example, the district’s investment earnings totaled $968, but had officials solicited interest rate quotes and considered other investment options, they may have realized investment earnings ranging between approximately $42,000 and $51,000.

Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Audit Follow-Up (Schenectady County) A previous audit, Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Board Oversight (2021M-185), determined that the company’s board did not develop financial procedures for collections and disbursements, periodically monitor the budget or ensure the constitution (bylaws) were followed.  The audit included eight recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the company’s financial operations. Although the board and company officials were aware of the prior audit, were familiar with the recommendations and conveyed in the company’s corrective action plan what actions they would take to implement the audit’s recommendations, the board and company officials did not implement any of the audit’s recommendations.

Montrose Fire District – Claims Auditing (Westchester County) Auditors reviewed 166 claims totaling $712,696 and determined that the board did not properly audit 78 claims totaling $47,836. For example, the board approved 21 claims totaling $23,789 without documentation indicating that the services outlined in the rental agreement were rendered and 13 claims that included sales tax totaling $228. District officials told auditors they were aware that sales taxes were paid on certain purchases and have taken measures to ensure sales taxes are not paid going forward. In addition, the board approved 42 out of 60 credit card claims totaling $5,117 without adequate supporting documentation that purchases were for legitimate district purposes. These claims included purchases totaling $484 made through an online payment system and at a local coffee chain. Although officials claimed that the purchases were fraudulent, they did not provide documentation to support that fraud claims were filed with the bank to dispute the charges. By not properly auditing claims, the board’s ability to effectively monitor district financial operations is diminished, and errors and irregularities may continue to occur and remain undetected and uncorrected.

Franklin Square Union Free School District – Website Transparency (Nassau County) District officials did not ensure the district’s website provided the public with transparent and comprehensive financial and administrative information. As a result, the community and other interested parties could not readily access and review district information to make informed decisions.

North Salem Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Westchester County) A previous audit – North Salem Central School District Network User Accounts (2022M-140) – determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit included three recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s monitoring of network user accounts. Of the three audit recommendations, district officials, the IT director and IT staff fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented two recommendations. Recommendations related to sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to district officials.