Property belonging to a public entity may have been deposited with the New York State Comptroller as abandoned property pursuant to §1401 of the Abandoned Property Law

New York State's Abandoned Property Law provides that the Office of the State Comptroller is to receive unclaimed monies and other property deemed abandoned. A list of the names, the last known addresses of the entitled owners of this abandoned property and the source of such property delivered to the Comptroller is maintained by the Comptroller pursuant to §1401 of the Abandoned Property Law.

Some of the property deposited with Comptroller is the property of an individual while other property belongs to a public entity or a private business.

For example, Comptroller DiNapoli recently presented a member of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators with an unclaimed funds check for $841.98 at the Comptroller's School Safety Roundtable Discussion. Set out below are some of the data made available by the Comptroller to assist the owners of "abandoned property" reclaim such property, including public entities.

To check to see if your organization, or you or a family member, may have "abandoned property" being held by the State Comptroller's Office of Abandoned Property, visit Department of Audit and Controls' web site by clicking HEREand searching for the entities' or the person's name under the appropriate "search heading".

Listed below are notices of "abandoned property" posted on the Internet by the State Comptroller's Office of Abandoned Property naming a public entity as its rightful owner. Click on the text in color to retrieve a brief description of the item.

Received following from the State Comptroller on August 1, 2022:

More Than $1.5 Million in Lost Money Returned Daily

Staff from New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s office will attend community events this month to help residents search for lost and forgotten money, also known as unclaimed funds. DiNapoli oversees more than 46 million unclaimed funds accounts valued at $17.5 billion and wants to return the money to its rightful owners.

“So far this year, we’ve given back over $234 million in lost or forgotten money,” DiNapoli said. “This should motivate everyone to come out and search for money that may be waiting for them to claim. And you don’t have to limit your search to yourself, you can check for family members, friends, neighbors, churches, synagogues, mosques or any organization you care about and let them know that they may have money awaiting them. I want to get this money back where it belongs—in the hands of New Yorkers.”

The billions in unclaimed funds come from old bank accounts, utility deposits, uncashed checks, insurance claims, stocks and other sources that have been dormant for a number of years. Some accounts hold money that has been lost and forgotten since the 1940s.

Residents who cannot make it to the events can search for and claim their money by using the online claiming system or by calling 1-800-221-9311.

 

3 of 166 "County of" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

COUNTY OF ERIE NY	DIVISION OF PURCHASING 1875 HARLEM RD BUFFALO NY 14212	CITIBANK NA (NYS)

 

COUNTY OF ESSEX NYS	PO BOX 217 PC67296 ELIZABETHTOWN NY 12932	STAPLES INC

 

COUNTY OF GENES

3837 WEST MAIN STREET ROAD BATAVIA NY 14020

UNITED MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

 

 3 of 675 "Town of" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

TOWN OF AVA	PO BOX 68 AVA NY 13303	ONEIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE

 

TOWN OF AVON	27 GENESEE ST AVON NY 14414	W W GRAINGER INC

 

TOWN OF BABYLON

153 WEST MAIN STREET BABYLON NY 11702

NRG ENERGY INC

 

 

3 of 270 "Village of" listings

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

VILLAGE OF ALFRED WW	198 N MAIN ST ALFRED NY 14802	W W GRAINGER INC

 

VILLAGE OF ALLEGANY	106 E MAIN ST ALLEGANY NY 14706	RELX INC & AFFILIATES

 

VILLAGE OF AMITYVILLE

C/O ATTN DEIRDRE PARKER OFFICE HIGHWAY E MPLOYEES AMITYVILLE NY 11701

AFLAC OF NEW YORK

 

 

3 of 244 "SUNY" listings

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

 

SUNY 403 B PROGRAM	MOHAWK VALLEY CC 1101 SHERMAN DRIVE UTICA NY 13501	FIDELTY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS CO

 

SUNY @ ALBANY	ATTN: K VACCARIELLO 1400 WASHI ALBANY NY 12222	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC

 

SUNY ADIRONDACK	640 BAY RD QUEENSBURY NY 12804

 

 

3 of 26 "BOCES" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

BOCES	CAYUGA-ONONDAGA BOARD OF COOPE PO BOX 45 1 SYRACUSE NY 13208	TIME WARNER CABLE INC

 

BOCES ADULT & CONTIN UING	0 WILSON ST GOUVERNEUR NY 13642	NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP

 

BOCES BROOME TIOGA

36038 MAIN STREET BINGHAMPTON NY 13905

NCS PEARSON INC

 

 

3 of 8 "Union Free School District" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

UNION FREE SCHOOL DI	480 CLAY PITTS RD EAST NORTHPORT NY 11731	HEWLETT PACKARD CO

 

UNION FREE SCHOOL DI	TOWN OF GREENBURGH BOARD OF ED 360 BROAD WAY HASTINGS NY 10706	PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AMERICA

 

UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST 1

399 KNOLLWOOD RD APT 103 WHITE PLAINS NY 10607

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY CO

 

3 of 7 "Central School District" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT	NEWFIELD HIGH SCHOOL ATTN PRINCIPAL 145 MARSHALL DRIVE SELDEN NY 11784	AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

 

CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #2	BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS NORTH TARRYTOWN NY 10591	FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH TARRYTOWN

 

CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1

TOWNS OF PHILLIPSTOWN & PUTNAM 289 291 M AIN MALL POUGHKEEPSIE NY 12601

SPRINT NEXTEL CORP

 

3 of 14 "CSEA" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

CSEA METROPOLITAN REGION 2	125 MAIDEN LANE NEW YORK NY 10038	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

 

CSEA PORT JEFFERSON VILLAGE	5 HEARTH CT CORAM NY 11727	SUFFOLK FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

 

CSEA UNIT 7910

405 UNION AVE ATTN FAITH LUMPK NEW WINDSOR NY 12553

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC

 

3 of 3 "United University Professions" listed

[Search for the name of your particular organization]

 

UNITED UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONS	PO BOX 15143 ALBANY NY 12212	ING LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY CO

 

UNITED UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONS	47 SAUNDERS ROAD BALLSTON LAKE NY 12019	ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC

 

UNITED UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONS

526 LEE ENTRANCE SU UB COMMONS BUFFALO NY 14228

STAPLES INC

 

 

 

Silence in a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to Civil Service Law Article 14, the Taylor Law, does not infer a right or benefit

New York State's Court of Appeals [NYCA] accepted certification of questions submitted to it by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [USCA] concerning the vesting of lifetime rights to retirement benefits by public employees of the State as the employer. 

Answering the first part of USCA's first certified question, NYCA responded that "New York's contract law does not recognize ... inferences" of vested lifetime rights to retiree benefits from silence and that "[a]bsent such inferences, none of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] provisions identified establish a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions, either singly or in combination." NYCA then declined "to determine whether the CBA's text is ambiguous." *

Considering the guidance provided by NYCA, USCA said that it concluded that the federal district court "did not err in granting summary judgment to the State respondents on both claims," explaining that "The New York Court of Appeals held as a matter of state law that the CBA provisions at issue cannot unambiguously establish a vested lifetime right to fixed premium contributions, so the breach of contract claim cannot succeed without the consideration of extrinsic evidence."

USCA further held that the CBA provisions at issue were not ambiguous regarding the establishment of such a vested right, and therefore "consideration of extrinsic evidence is not permissible".

On July 27, 2022, USCA handed down following decisions addressing this matter.

Click on the numbers highlighted in color to access the text of the decision.

18-3221

New York State Court Officers Association v. Hite

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3151

New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3220

Kreh v. Cuomo

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3142

The New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3066

The New York State Police Investigators Association v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3183

Police Benevolent Association v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3140

Spence v. State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3122 (L)

Brown v. State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3172

Roberts v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

 

18-3049

The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. v. The State of New York

07-27-2022

SUM

* See 36 N.Y.3d 935; 38 N.Y.3d 1. 

Challenging the removal, and the subsequent denial of an application for reinstatement, of a member of a school board

In this ruling Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa consolidated two separate appeals brought by a former member of a school board [Petitioner] in which similar issues of law and fact were involved. 

The first appeal concerned Petitioner's efforts seeking a stay her removal from the board pursuant to Education Law §1709(18) while the second appeal concerned Petitioner's seeking reinstatement to the board following her removal from the school board after being found guilty of two charges filed against her.*

With respect to Petitioner's efforts to "stay her removal from the board," Petitioner sought to have "the removal hearing heard by the Commissioner rather than the board" or, in the alternative, that the Commissioner's issuing an order directing the recusal of the school board president. Petitioner's requests were both denied and following an administrative hearing, the Petitioner was removed from her position on the board.

Regarding Petitioner's challenging her removal from the board and her seeking reinstatement in the instant consolidated proceeding, after addressing two procedural matters, the Commissioner considered  the merits of Petitioner's appeal. In so doing, the Commissioner noted that "in an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief."

With respect to the charges of “official misconduct” served on Petitioner, the Commissioner determined  that the two allegations of such misconduct met the standard for official misconduct set out in Education Law §1709(18). Such misconduct, said the Commissioner, constituted "wrongdoing committed in [Petitioner's] capacity as a school officer," which the Commissioner characterized as "quintessential" official misconduct.

The Commissioner found that the record supported the school board’s determination that Petitioner engaged in official misconduct, noting that board members “have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district” and Petitioner's actions in this instance "violated this duty."

Further, noted the Commissioner, official misconduct within the meaning of Education Law §1709(18) "is not dependent upon a violation of statute or district policy," citing 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,116 and other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education.

*  The penalties imposed: The board [a] admonished Petitioner for the misconduct alleged in Charge One, improperly disclosing confidential information, and [b] determined that the misconduct alleged in Charge Two, official misconduct, warranted her removal.

Click HERE to access the text of the Commissioner's decision.

 

Statements made by a public employee in his "official capacity" in the course of an investigation by public agencies are not protected by the First Amendment

An employee of New York City's Department for Citywide Administrative Services [Plaintiff] alleged that he was terminated from his position because he provided "unfavorable statements to investigators" during interviews concerning the City’s involvement in certain transactions made during his tenure. These transactions had been the subject of multiple inquiries and investigations by various New York City and federal agencies. 

Federal district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff's statements made in the course of the investigative interviews were made in his capacity of his being an employee of the City rather than as a private citizen. The court said that [1] such statements "were not protected by the First Amendment" and [2] the Plaintiff "failed to show that a causal connection existed between his cooperation with investigators and his later discharge." 

Noting that to prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim the plaintiff must establish that his protected speech was a but-for cause of some adverse employment action, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling, explaining that it found that "no reasonable juror could find that [Plaintiff's] testimony was the but for cause of his termination". 

The decision is posted on the Internet at https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6b8ab6af-1174-4152-a64a-a1138649334e/3/doc/21-925_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6b8ab6af-1174-4152-a64a-a1138649334e/3/hilite/