Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 17, 2026

City & State published an op-ed contribution by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The item addresses the need for companies to be transparent about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is impacting layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term growth.  DOWNLOAD

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD

Plan, Act, Recover: Disaster Preparedness in the Public Sector This research report reveals how state and local leaders are using real-time data, AI, and better communication tools to respond to disasters faster and recover stronger. See what 250 public sector leaders say they need to improve. Download

Why Identity Is Now Core HHS Infrastructure For HHS agencies, identity verification is no longer a support support function. This paper explains how modern identity platforms give agencies a consistent, risk-based way to verify new applicants and returning beneficiaries. DOWNLOAD 

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

AI Is Reshaping Criminal Justice. The Real Question Is How We Govern It AI can improve efficiency and fairness — but only with strong oversight and accountability.   READ NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

AI in the Room: Making Public Collaboration Smarter, Not Harder Learn how AI-powered meeting tools improve accessibility, collaboration and engagement for hybrid public sector teams. WATCH NOW

ITSM Complexity to Clarity: Modernizing with No-Code and AI Learn how to bring clarity to ITSM complexity through no-code automation, AI and modern ITSM strategies. WATCH NOW  

Content + AI: The Future of Public Service Strategies to help government leaders scale secure, compliant AI solutions. WATCH NOW 

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW 

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Employee terminated after being found guilty of having posted items that featured biased and discriminatory language and images on Facebook

In this CPLR Article 78 action Plaintiff sought judicial review of a revised determination of the New York State Office of Court Administration's Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adoption of the report and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and recommended the termination the Petitioner's employment as a court officer. 

Plaintiff had been employed as a court officer by the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] for approximately 14 years and it was alleged Plaintiff had engaged in specified acts of misconduct when Plaintiff shared 26 posts on Facebook that featured biased and discriminatory language and images. Plaintiff denied the charge.

At the conclusion of Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report finding Plaintiff guilty of each specified act of misconduct and recommended that the Plaintiff be terminated. The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendations and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge issued a revised determination in which he again adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendation and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. 

Plaintiff then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge's revised determination. 

The Appellate Division, in its decision, noted:

1. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence" (see Matter of Afolayan v Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 229 AD3d 698]";

2. "Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact", which is a "minimal standard", demanding only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable; and

3. "Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently".

The Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's alleged misconduct was supported by substantial evidence as "OCA demonstrated that the biased nature of the [Plaintiff's] comments, which were connected to a public Facebook profile that identified him as a Sergeant with UCS, and violated the internal rules and regulations, as well as the ethical codes, of UCS". The Appellate Division then said "given the public facing nature of the [Plaintiff's] position in a system that requires fairness and equality, the administrative record supports the conclusion that the bias illustrated by the [Plaintiff's] posts negatively impacted UCS's ability to maintain neutrality and serve vulnerable populations".

Addressing Plaintiff's contention that the revised disciplinary determination violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech, the Appellate Division opined that OCA had met its burden of establishing that discipline arising out of the Plaintiff's otherwise protected activity was justified. Further, the Appellate Division opined that the revised determination did not violate the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, "because the prohibition on discriminatory speech was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable to all UCS employees".

Turning to the disciplinary penalty imposed on Plaintiff, the Appellate Division noted that such review "is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" and the administrative penalty imposed "must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The Appellate Division concluded that, contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the "penalty of termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", confirmed the revised disciplinary determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, citing Matter of Phelps v State of N.Y.—Unified Ct. Sys., 208 AD3 880 and Sekul v City of Poughkeepsie, 195 AD3d 622.

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

Grouping students with disabilities for purposes of instruction

On April 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, certified the question set out below to the New York State Court of Appeals:

“When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under §200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE  may pick?” 

The Court of Appeals responded, concluding that the required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] §200.6(h)(4) represent alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the described levels of management needs and disabilities.

In light of Court of Appeals' response, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court, holding:

Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education (including resource room, special class, consultant teacher services, integrated co-teaching and related services groups) must be grouped by similarity of individual needs in accordance with the four need areas of:

• Academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics
• Social Development
• Physical Development
• Management Needs 

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's ruling posted on the Internet.