Former Morley Fire Volunteer Company treasurer pleads guilty to stealing over $16,000

On November 2, 2023, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced a  former treasurer of the Morley Volunteer Fire Co., Cindi Perkins, pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree for stealing over $16,000 from the company over a three-year period.

DiNapoli said “Ms. Perkins was entrusted with money meant to protect her community. Instead, she betrayed the fire company and her neighbors by enriching herself.” Noting that combating fraud and protecting taxpayer money is a priority of his, the Comptroller thanked "St. Lawrence County District Attorney Gary Pasqua and the New York State Police for partnering with [his] office to bring her to justice.”

Perkins, who worked for the fire company from 2016 to 2019, made unauthorized cash withdrawals, failed to deposit fire company funds, made unauthorized purchases, and wrote unauthorized checks to herself. The monies were a combination of payments from the Town of Canton and the Morley Fire District, as well as fundraising dollars.

Investigators found the 58-year-old Perkins, who controlled all aspects of the fire company’s finances, made more than $16,000 in personal cash deposits soon after similar cash amounts were paid to the Morley Volunteer Fire Co.

Bank records also showed ATM withdraws made from the Morley Volunteer Fire Company accounts at the Del Lago Resort and Casino and the Turning Stone Resort Casino.

Perkins used the stolen money for personal purchases including groceries, makeup, and other retail consumer items, investigators found.

Perkins, of Canton, pleaded guilty in St. Lawrence County Court. She is due back in court for sentencing on Jan. 3, 2024.

In another case of alleged "Jobbery" -- Mirriam-Webster defines jobbery as "the improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain" -- State Comptroller DiNapoli, Steuben County District Attorney Baker and the New York State Police announced the arrest of a former Village of Addison official for an alleged theft of more than $1.1 million. Click HERE for details.

 ###

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.state.ny.us/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

 

New York City and New York State Human Rights Law complaints are generally analyzed under less demanding standard than are federal discrimination claims

Supreme Court's rejection of Defendants' [City Respondents] motion to dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action alleging discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law [City HRL] and New York State Human Rights Law [State HRL]; her aiding and abetting claims; and her claims under the Gender-Motivated Violence Act [GMVA]* was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, without costs.

The Appellate Division held that dismissal of Plaintiff's federal discrimination claims at the pleading stage "does not preclude Plaintiff's City and State Human Rights Laws claims based on principles of collateral estoppel." 

In addition, the court noted that "employment discrimination claims brought under the City and State HRLs are generally analyzed under a more lenient notice pleading standard than federal discrimination claims and need only give a Defendant "fair notice" of the nature and grounds of Plaintiff's claims."

On a "motion to dismiss" a court a must accept allegations which evidence at least some gender-based animus as true. In this instance the Appellate Division found:

1. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded her claims of discrimination and hostile work environment under the State and City HRLs by alleging she received more intense scrutiny and was excluded from meetings that her male, non-Black peer was invited to join;

2. Plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded her retaliation claim, as the complaint alleges, and therefore provides City Respondents with fair notice of City Respondents' alleged retaliatory conduct following Plaintiff's protected actions of filing various complaints and retaining counsel in response to City Respondents' allegedly discriminatory acts; and

3. Plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim under the GVMA as she alleged she had been physically harmed her by being struck by another individual and that individual had directed animus against another Black female employee in the past.

The Court said it must accept these allegations, which evidence at least some gender-based animus, as true on a motion to dismiss (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Servs., Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 241 [2021]).

* Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-903.

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

Request for exemption from the New York City Department of Education's COVID-19 vaccination requirement denied

The New York City Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel [Panel] denied an Educator's request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees of the New York City Department of Education [DOE]. Supreme Court dismissed Educator's CPLR Article 78 petition appealing the Panel's decision, which ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, without costs.

The Appellate Division opined that the denial of Educator's request for a religious exemption and reasonable accommodations for her job as a school teacher was not arbitrary and capricious, noting DOE's argument that "allowing [Educator] to teach remotely while the DOE was resuming in-person instruction, would impose an undue hardship on the [DOE]".

The DOE's "Position Statement" explained that accommodating Educator would result in her being unable to perform her essential functions as a schoolteacher and given that more than 3,300 DOE employees had requested religious exemptions, "granting an exemption to the employees would impose on the DOE significant costs and operational difficulties associated with creating alternative assignments for the exempted employees, and retaining and hiring additional staff to perform the exempted employees' essential job functions". This, said the Appellate Division, "was a rational basis for the denial of [Educator's] request."

Addressing a procedural matter, the Appellate Division observing the fact DOE's Position Statement was "unsigned and undated hearsay", said "[h]earsay evidence can be the basis for an administrative determination", citing Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, and "this Court need not limit our review to the language in the Citywide Panel's decision, as the Panel noted that it had reviewed the DOE's determination as well as the documentation submitted to the agency, and that it based its decision on that review."

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

N.B. A decision by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Candice D'Cunha v Northwell Health Systems, [23-476-cv], addresses alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) when Northwell refused to accommodate D'Cunha's requests for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption and terminated her employment. Click HERE to access the D'Cunha decision posted on the Internet.

 

 

Civil Rights Law §50-a as amended by Chapter 96, Laws of 2020 held to apply to law enforcement officer personnel records retroactively

As is relevant here, former Civil Rights Law §50-a provided, with limited exceptions, that "[a]ll personnel records [of law enforcement officers] used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion ... shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review" (see Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 32 NY3d 556).

The legislature repealed Civil Rights Law §50-a [see Chapter 96, Laws of 2020] and made several related amendments to the State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], providing that such changes "shall take effect immediately".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a ... reflected a strong legislative policy promoting transparency of police disciplinary records and eliminated any claim of confidentiality in them" (see People v Castellanos, 72 Misc 3d 371)).

The Appellate Division then held that "the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a applies retroactively to records created prior to June 12, 2020", citing Schenectady Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Schenectady, 2020 WL 7978093; 2020 NY Slip Op 34346[U].

In the words of the Appellate Division, while "the legislature made no express statement in the repeal itself, or in the limited legislative history concerning the same, as to whether the repeal was to be applied retroactively [the amendments] "went into effect immediately and, by its plain reading and intent, applies to records then existing and not simply to records created at a time subsequent to the enactment of the legislation."

Citing Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, the court said "While the characterization of a statute as remedial is not dispositive, as a general matter, "remedial legislation should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose".

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

 

Regulating the risks of artificial intelligence

CNN reports the White House rolled out a sweeping executive order on October 30, 2032 "that aims to monitor and regulate the risks of artificial intelligence while also harnessing its potential."

Click HERE to access the CNN article posted on the Internet.