Employee's making misleading entries into agency records and other acts of insubordination results in disciplinary action

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings' Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 22-day suspension without pay as the penalty to be imposed on an agency employee [Respondent] charged with, and found guilty of, insubordination and making a false, deceptive, and misleading entry into an agency record. 

After being directed not to do so, Respondent worked on and sent emails concerning matters not assigned to her and copied the agency's Commissioner and the agency's Deputy Commissioner on routine work emails. Respondent also submitted a request to the agency's Office of Information Technology [OIT] service desk for assistance on behalf of the Commissioner without the Commissioner's knowledge or approval in an effort to restore Respondent's access to an agency database. 

The ALJ found that Respondent willfully disobeyed Respondent's supervisor’s clear and unambiguous instructions that Respondent:

[1] not send emails regarding issues not assigned to her, and, in addition, 

[2] not to send emails addressed to individuals outside Respondent's chain of command. 

Judge Gloade also found that Respondent made a false entry in agency records when she submitted an OIT ticket "on the Commissioner’s behalf" without authorization and misrepresented that she sent the request on the Commissioner’s behalf. 

The ALJ recommended Respondent be suspended for 22 days without pay, noting the recommended penalty was coupled with a 15-day prehearing suspension that Respondent had already served. 

Click HERE to access Judge Gloade's findings and recommended penalty posted on the Internet.

Petitioner denial of a reasonable accommodation dismissed for failure to state a cause of action

Supreme Court had granted the City of New York's motion to dismiss Plaintiff complaint on the grounds that it was untimely. However, the Appellate Division subsequently opined that "The complaint should not have been dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff chose to assert claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws rather than seeking administrative review of the denial of his reasonable accommodation request, as was his right".

The Appellate Division concluded that the complaint was timely filed because Plaintiff's claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than the statutes of limitations controlling the initiating of litigation under color of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

Nonetheless, the Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court properly dismissed the action "because even under a lenient notice pleading standard, it fails to state a cause of action for discrimination for failure to provide an accommodation under the State or City Human Rights Laws".  

The Appellate Division's ruling explained that "Plaintiff's bare allegation that taking the vaccine conflicted with the Ten Commandment's broad admonition 'thou shalt not kill' was insufficient to show that he adhered to a bona fide religious practice or doctrine that [Defendants] failed to accommodate", citing a number of decisions by New York State courts including Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].

The Appellate Division also rejected Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant "failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue" as unavailing, again citing Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].

With respect to Plaintiff's cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment ordering the New York City Police Department to consider and grant his application for reinstatement, the Appellate Division noted that such a request is "essentially an Article 78 claim for mandamus". In the words of the Appellate Division, "Plaintiff failed to show that defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to grant the relief requested, or that he has a clear legal right to reinstatement" and the decision not to reinstate Plaintiff is not subject to mandamus because it involves the exercise of discretion.

The Appellate Division then "unanimously affirmed" the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, without costs

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the municipal and school audits listed below on March 8, 2026

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli posted the municipal and school audits listed below on the Internet on March 8, 2026.

Click on the text highlighted  in color to access the complete text of the audits.

Lawrence Union Free School District – Financial Management (Nassau County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage fund balance. For the 2021-22 through 2023-24 fiscal years, the district’s reported surplus fund balance ranged from approximately 7 to 15% of the upcoming year’s budget, which was $3.5 million to $11.1 million over the 4% statutory limit. The district did not exceed the statutory limit for the 2024-25 fiscal year primarily due to an unbudgeted $15 million transfer to the capital projects fund. Additionally, for the 2021-22 through 2023-24 fiscal years, the board adopted budgets that annually overestimated appropriations by an average of $9.4 million per year, or a cumulative total of approximately $28.2 million after adjusting for unplanned transfers. The majority of the overestimated appropriations were for instruction, health insurance benefits and special education services totaling $17 million.

Syracuse City School District – Information Technology (IT) (Onondaga County)

District officials did not adequately manage nonstudent network user accounts. As of Nov. 15, 2024, 488 of the district’s 6,386 enabled nonstudent network user accounts were not needed and should have been disabled. Auditors determined that 433 of the unneeded accounts had never been logged into or had not been logged into for over six months, including some that have not been logged into for at least five years. These accounts are additional entry points into the district’s network and, if accessed by an attacker, could be used to inappropriately access the network to view personal, private and sensitive student and staff information, make unauthorized changes to district records or deny legitimate access to the network and records. Compromised network user accounts with administrative permissions could cause greater damage because they have full control over the network. During the audit, IT department officials initiated corrective action to disable unnecessary accounts.

Town of Horseheads – Information Technology (Chemung County)

Town officials did not adequately manage network and local user accounts, develop and adopt a written IT contingency plan, or provide IT security awareness training to staff. Although the town board paid $14,790 to a vendor for IT-related services, officials did not enter into a written contract or service level agreement to define the scope of services. As a result, the board cannot be assured that the town’s IT systems are secured from unauthorized use and access or that critical data would be preserved and operations restored in the event of an interruption.

Great River Fire District – Treasurer Reports (Suffolk County)

Auditors determined that the treasurer did not always provide the board with complete and accurate financial reports. As a result, the board did not have adequate information to properly monitor the district’s financial operations. The treasurer manually prepared financial reports that contained errors. The treasurer’s calculated book balances for the general fund checking account varied from the accounting records by $12 to $4,701 without documentation supporting the calculations. In addition, the listings of claims included in the treasurer’s reports were inaccurate or incomplete for 28 of 279 claims totaling $4,464 of $340,597 reviewed.