Terminated individual holding a term appointment challenged her dismissal from the position before her term of office had expired

By resolution dated April 5, 2023, a New York State Incorporated Village [Village] appointed Petitioner as the Village's clerk-treasurer for a term of office set to expire June 30, 2024. By resolution dated May 24, 2023 the Village rescinded the Petitioner's appointment.

Petitioner brought the instant action in Supreme Court challenging the Village's termination of her employment, alleging that her removal "was not properly effectuated in accordance with Public Officers Law §36".* The Village moved pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss Plaintiff's  petition, arguing, inter alia, that the proceeding initiated by Plaintiff was barred by the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.

A New York State Supreme Court:

1. Granted Plaintiff's petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and

2. Denied the motion of the Village pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024.

 

The Village appealed the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment "insofar as appealed from, with costs". 

Citing Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 219 AD3d 596, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. "Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a [petition] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel";

2. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding"; and

3. "The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and the party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination".

Noting that to establish "privity" -- a relationship between parties having legal interest in the same right or property -- the Appellate Division's decision explores the connection between the parties which typically must demonstrate that "the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding" and privity "does not have a technical and well-defined meaning". 

The Appellate Division then observed that privity "is an amorphous concept not easy of application", and privity includes "those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly co-parties to a prior action".

Further, the Appellate Division opined that "When the issue of privity is raised, 'courts must carefully analyze whether the party sought to be bound and the party against whom the litigated issue was decided have a relationship that would justify preclusion, and whether preclusion, with its severe consequences, would be fair under the particular circumstances'".

Contrary to the Village's contention, the Appellate Division held that the Village "... failed to demonstrate that the [Petitioner] was in privity with any of the parties [in] a separate proceeding commenced by the clerk-treasurer who preceded the [Petitioner] against, among others, the Village, and that the [Petitioner] was thereby bound by a judgment entered in that proceeding".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the Village failed to establish that the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the instant proceeding and found  that "the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and denied that branch of the Village's motion which was pursuant to CPLR [§§]3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition".

* Public Officers Law §36 provides as follows: "Any town, village, improvement district or fire district officer, except a justice of the peace, may be removed from office by the supreme court for any misconuct [sic], maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office. An application for such removal may be made by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement district or fire district or by the district attorney of the county in which such town, village or district is located, and shall be made to the appellate division of the supreme court held within the judicial department embracing such town, village, improvement district or fire district. Such application shall be made upon notice to such officer of not less than eight days, and a copy of the charges upon which the application will be made must be served with such notice".

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

Plaintiff's filing a timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship

Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Westchester County Local #860's, [Local 860]'s collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with the Town  provided, among other things, that seniority shall be the determining factor for selection to a vacant position where all other factors are equal. 

Town created a new general foreman position for which two applicants, A and B, applied. Town selected A for the appointment to the position and Local 860, on behalf of B, filed a grievance challenging the Town' appointing A to the position as provided by the relevant provision's set out in the CBA. 

Ultimately the parties proceeded to non-binding arbitration in accordance with provisions set out in the CBA. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of appointing B to the position, which decision was rejected by the Town.

Local 860 brought an action in Supreme Court challenging the Town's decision and Town moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted the Town's motion and Local 860 appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining:

1. The filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town and Town Law §65(3) provides that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued"; 

2. In contrast to other notice statutes, "Town Law §65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements";

3. An exception to Town Law §65(3)'s notice of claim requirement is only applicable where a plaintiff has pleaded an ongoing or continuing violation, "which the complaint in the instant action did not"; and 

4. As the plaintiffs seek both the recovery of damages and equitable relief, "the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent" to the maintenance of the instant action.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Town's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint".

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

On September 28, 2026, GT Weekly's Executive Editor, Noelle Knell, reported

"There’s new IT leadership in New York State following the announcement that CIO Dru Rai has left state service. 

Results reveal an evolving landscape on things like IT strategy, cybersecurity, AI and data management. 

We also checked in with South Carolina CIO Nathan Hogue, who shared that the state is now tracking 250 AI use cases. 

Meanwhile in Washington State, a new CISO has been named. 

Finally, while AI threats to cybersecurity have been dominating headlines, ransomware remains alive and well."

Owner of Ulster County medical transportation company sentenced to prison for stealing $1.1 million in Medicare fraud scheme

On September 25, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Ulster County District Attorney Emmanuel C. Nneji announced the owner of an Ulster County medical transportation service company today was sentenced to serve three to nine years in state prison and ordered to pay full restitution for stealing over $1.1 million by unlawfully billing the Medicaid program by inflating charges and billing for services that were never provided.

Muhammad W. Khan, 31, the owner of MAK Limo, pleaded guilty in March to grand larceny in Ulster County Court before Judge Bryan Rounds.

“Muhammad Khan falsified bills and bribed patients to deprive the Medicaid program of over a million dollars, taking money that should have rightly been spent on healthcare for New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “I thank Ulster County District Attorney Nneji for his partnership on this case and in fighting public fraud.”

“This huge theft scheme was uncovered, and the perpetrators brought to justice, by the tenacious and collaborative efforts of the investigators and lawyers dedicated to the case,” Nneji said. “I am grateful to Comptroller DiNapoli for his commitment to holding these operations accountable and recovering public funds stolen by the defendant.”

Under the Medicaid program, patients may use transportation services to go to legitimate medical appointments. Providers then bill the Medicaid program. Group rides are not allowed without prior authorization, and approved providers can only bill for mileage once for a group.

As part of the joint investigation, investigators found the defendant systematically billed the Medicaid program individually for rides that were actually group rides and for rides that never occurred. The investigation also found patients were paid kickbacks to use MAK Limo’s services and facilitate the fraud. The crimes occurred from November 2020 to August 2024.

Khan was arrested in June 2025 along with his father, Mohammad A. Khan, 69, the owner of Atlas Limo. Both companies were enrolled in the Medicaid program and received over $5.8 million dollars in Medicaid payments from New York state.

Mohammad A. Khan was charged with grand larceny in the second degree. He was accused of stealing $111,548.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.ny.gov/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

###