ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

July 08, 2014

NYS State Department of Civil Service has established a resource center to assist in the recruitment persons with disabilities for appointment to State positions


NYS State Department of Civil Service has established a resource center to assist in the recruitment persons with disabilities for appointment to State positions
Source: NYS Department of Civil Service General Information Bulletin 14-01

Civil Service Law §55-b provides for the employment of persons with disabilities by the State. The Civil Service Commission may determine up to 1,200 that may be performed by persons with a physical or mental disability who are found otherwise qualified to perform satisfactorily the duties of any such position. Upon such determination the position is placed in the noncompetitive class and may be filled only by persons who have been certified by the Department’s Employee Health Service as being a person with either a physical or mental disability.

Civil Service Law §55-c provides for the employment of veterans with disabilities by the State. 500 such positions may be designated by the State Civil Service Commission as positions with duties that may be performed by disabled veterans and veterans with disabilities who are found otherwise qualified to perform satisfactorily. Such positions are also placed in the noncompetitive class and may be filled only by veterans of the armed forces of the United States who served during time of war as defined in Civil Service Law §85.1(c).*

Employees appointed to positions pursuant to §55-b or §55-c are eligible to compete promotional examinations.

The Department of Civil Service has established a “55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center.” The Center’s Internet site is www.cs.ny.gov/rp55 and will serve as the central online location through which individuals currently approved for the Governor’s Program to Hire Individuals and Veterans with Disabilities (55-b or 55-c Program) will submit up-to-date employment and contact information for consideration by State agencies filling entry-level positions. This site is designed to make it quicker and easier for State agencies to find qualified 55-b/c job seekers. The Department encourages State Departments and Agencies to begin using the 55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center when filling entry-level positions.

Questions regarding the 55-b/c program or use of the 55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center, may be emailed SSDRecruitServices@cs.ny.gov or call: (518) 473-8961 for questions regarding the Governor’s Program to Hire Persons with Disabilities (55-b Program); or(518) 473-9733 for the Governor’s Program to Hire Veterans with Disabilities (55-c Program).

The text of the Department’s General Information Bulletin 14-01 is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB14-01.cfm

*N.B. There are two “§55-c” set out in the Civil Service Law. The second “§55-c" provides for the acceptance of a high school individualized education plan diploma granted to a child with handicapping conditions whenever a high school diploma is required by the State Civil Service Department or a municipal civil service commission or personnel officer as a minimum qualification in any competitive examination. 
.

July 07, 2014

Essential considerations in a court’s review of an administrative decision after an administrative hearing required by law


Essential considerations in a court’s review of an administrative decision after an administrative hearing required by law
Willis v New York State Liq. Auth., 2014 NY Slip Op 04776, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this CPLR Article 78 action challenging a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority adopting the recommendation of an administrative law judge the Appellate Division succinctly sets out the essential elements in a court’s review of a challenge to the determination as follows:

1. "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence;

2. “Substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact;

3. Substantial evidence is "[m]ore than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

4. "The standard demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable;

5. “The strict rules of evidence do not apply to administrative proceedings and hearsay evidence is admissible; and.

6. “Hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence if sufficiently relevant and probative and may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis for an agency's determination, unless it is seriously controverted.”

In sustaining the challenged determination of the State Liquor Authority, the court explained that the Authority’s determination, sustaining three charges was supported by substantial evidence and that testimony at the hearing, consisting of conclusory denials, did not seriously controvert the Authority's showing of substantial evidence in support of the charges.

As to the penalty imposed by the Authority, the Appellate Division said that it was “not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing S&S Pub, Inc. v NYS Liquor Authority, 109 AD3d 460, and that “[i]n setting a penalty, consideration of the history and previous record … is appropriate,” citing Untitled LLC v NYS Liq. Auth., 82 AD3d 460 among other decisions.
.

July 06, 2014

Audits of municipalities issued by the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 5, 20114


Audits of municipalities issued by the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 5, 20114
Source: Office of the State Comptroller
Auditors commended the town justices for establishing strong internal controls over court operations. The justices implemented specific controls to ensure court money collected was properly recorded in the court records, deposited in a timely manner and accurately reported to the Justice Court Fund.

Village officials need to improve internal controls to ensure water, sewer and electric user charges are properly billed, collected, recorded and deposited. The duties for billing, collecting and recording payments are not segregated. Also, customer account adjustments are not independently approved and the computerized billing system does not provide an audit log to show adjustments that have been made.
Internal controls over the claims audit process were not appropriately designed to protect and account for library assets. Although one board member reviewed claims as a part of the check-signing process, they were not reviewed by other members. Additionally, the board member who reviewed the claims did not document his review and approval by signing the claims.
The town clerk remitted tax collections to the town and the county up to two months late and returned duplicate payments eight months after the payment was made. The clerk did not routinely indicate the form or date of payment on tax stubs/receipts and made deposits on average nine days late. In addition, the town board has not performed an annual audit of the clerk’s records.
The board reviewed each claim presented for audit and approval, however, they did not ensure that claims included the necessary documentation. Paid claims lacked proper itemization and documentation to indicate they represented actual and necessary town expenses.
Auditors found that most of the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget for the general, sanitation, water and sewer funds are reasonable. The tentative budget did not include a tax overlay or provisions for potential salary increases from contract settlements. These issues could cause the village to become fiscally stressed or require an increase in taxes.


Newstead Fire Company – Internal Controls Over Financial Activities (Erie County)
The treasurer maintained appropriate financial records, performed monthly bank reconciliations, and submitted monthly financial reports to the board. However, the board did not oversee fundraising activities, properly authorize disbursements or review the treasurer’s reconciled bank statements.
Reliance on appropriated fund balance as a financing source in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years resulted in a significant reduction in the city’s general fund balance and unassigned fund balance. Beginning in the 2013 fiscal year, city officials took steps to replace fund balance. Based on the city’s revenue increases and cost-saving measures adopted in 2013, it appears that officials are properly managing the city’s financial condition.
The town’s procurement process was generally effective for obtaining goods and public works contracts subject to the policy’s bidding thresholds. In most instances the town purchased equipment and commodities through state or county contracts or by competitively bidding. However, officials did not develop and follow formal procedures for obtaining professional services.
.

July 05, 2014

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issues audits of certain State agencies


New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issues audits of certain State agencies
Source: Office of the State Comptroller 

On July 2, 2014 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits have been issued:

Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Mission Statement and Performance Measures (2013-S-13)
Auditors found the authority did not meet its targeted performance level for customer satisfaction for 20 percent of its customers, particularly in the areas of project design and construction. Also, construction clients expressed concerns about the timeliness and cost of projects. With respect to debt issuances, 43 percent of survey respondents indicated they were less than satisfied with the cost of debt issuance, and 12 percent rated timeliness less than acceptable.
New York City Transit Authority (Transit) used the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds for 23 projects estimated to cost $441.4 million. Auditors visited 15 of the 23 projects' sites and did a more detailed review of one project, the Induction Loop project (estimated to cost $13.4 million), finding the prime contractor allowed unauthorized subcontractors to work on the project. One of those subcontractors was Petrocelli Electrical Company, whose former chairman and owner was indicted (and later convicted) on charges of making illegal payments to a labor union representative. Auditors also found two Transit supervisors were paid excessive and questionable overtime totaling $31,783 for administrative duties. In visits to work sites, auditors noted an excessive number of Transit employees present and receiving overtime pay.


New York State Homes and Community Renewal, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-99)
Travel expenses totaling $112,233 for three of the five employees selected for review were appropriate and adhered to state travel rules and regulations. However, auditors identified unnecessary and questionable travel expenses totaling $12,446 for two employees. The travel reimbursements for these two employees may have potential tax implications.
In an initial audit report issued in April 2013, auditors found the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) found that NYSTA repairs defects identified during inspections. However, highway bridges were not always inspected timely, including three with flagged conditions, and DOT was not always notified of red flags within one week, as required.  In a follow-up report, auditors found NYSTA implemented the three recommendations made in our initial report.
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) designed effective internal controls over certain accounts to ensure that payments were for appropriate business purposes and were properly accounted for. Auditors found the controls have generally operated as intended. However, auditors noted a few isolated issues related to certain checks that were not properly accounted for or documented in WCB records

July 03, 2014

Pension "double-dipping" stopped


Pension "double-dipping" stopped
Source: Office of the State Comptroller


On June 1, 2014, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice announced the guilty plea of a retired police officer charged with receiving pension payments from the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System in violation of law.

The investigation was made possible by a 2012 law, proposed by DiNapoli, which gave the State Comptroller access to the Sate Department of Taxation and Finance's wage reporting system to identify state retirement system retirees working for local governments whose earnings exceed post-retirement earnings limitations.

The retired officer pleaded guilty to permitting falsification of records of the retirement system, a Class D felony. As part of his guilty plea, he must repay the almost half-a-million dollars that he acquired illegally. 

Although the officer was repeatedly notified of the earnings limitations on post-retirement public employment and the requirement to report his public employment income, he chose not to do so, pocketing $465,647 in unlawful pension payments while earning a final full-time salary of $112,000 in pubic employment following his retirement from his police officer position.

The Comptroller noted that following his retirement the officer took a job at a SUNY community college without notifying his office of his return to public employment, failed to comply with the earnings limitations that apply to public retirees collecting a public pension, didn’t obtain a waiver allowing him to earn above the legal limit; and joined the State University’s Optional Retirement Program, all while continuing to receive his full retirement allowance.*

Essentially, except with respect to post-retirement payments for service while on jury duty or serving in the office of inspector of election, or as poll clerk or ballot clerk under the election law, or as a notary public or commissioner of deeds, or as a retiree elected to public office, §150 of the Civil Service Law requires the suspension of a retired public employee’s pension or annuity payments during any post-retirement public employment by a New York State agency or a political subdivision of the State. 

However, relevant provisions of the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Education Law and local law or charter permits limited earnings by a retired employee returning to public service, including such employment as a consultant, without forfeiting his or her pension payments during such employment. §211 of the Retirement and Social Security Law sets out the earning limitations with respect to the employment of retired persons without diminution of his or her pension payments while §212 of the Retirement and Social Security Law provides that there are no limitations on the amount a retired public employee returning to public service may earn on or after the calendar year in which he or she attains age sixty-five.

The case was investigated by Comptroller DiNapoli’s Division of Investigations and Division of Retirement Services jointly with Nassau District Attorney personnel.

Reports of allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money may be submitted to the State Comptroller by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at investigations@osc.state.ny.usor by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

* The Comptroller said that State law, the so-called Axelrod amendment, bars a retiree's collecting a public pension from a public retirement of this State from enrolling in SUNY's Optional Retirement Program upon his or her returning to public employment..
.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com