New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government were issued on February 13, 2025

 Click on the text highlighted in color to access the item posted on the Internet.

Cuddebackville Fire District – Board Oversight (Orange County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations or properly audit claims. As a result, the board hindered their ability to make informed financial decisions. Complete, accurate and reliable accounting records were not maintained. For example, the Dec. 31, 2022 ending bank statement balances differed from the ending cash balances in the accounting records by $638,485. The board also used unrealistic budgetary estimates that resulted in annual operating deficits and a declining fund balance. The board did not ensure the treasurer maintained complete and accurate accounting records, requested or received regular financial reports or ensured claims were properly audited prior to payment. Although the board paid a CPA $6,750 to conduct the 2019 and 2020 audits, the CPA did not complete the 2020 audit and has possession of the district’s financial records. The board was unaware the audit was not completed and took no action.

Town of Clifton Park – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Saratoga County) Of the 562 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 47(8%) where town officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at selected town facilities.

Town of Trenton – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Oneida County) Of the 144 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 14(10%) where town officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at the Town Municipal Center.

City of Auburn – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Cayuga County) Of the 538 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 70(13%) where city officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at selected city facilities.

Town of Woodbury – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Orange County) Of the 595 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 131(22%) where town officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at selected town facilities.

City of Norwich – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Chenango County) Of the 317 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 30(9%) where city officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at selected city facilities.

Town of Penfield – Physical Accessibility to Programs and Services (Monroe County) Of the 679 applicable physical accessibility components reviewed, auditors identified 58(9%) where town officials could consider taking additional steps to increase physical accessibility at selected town facilities.

###

 

The New York's Supreme Courts and the New York's Court of Claims both have jurisdiction to consider claims alleging violation Civil Service Law §75-b or Labor Law §740

Following her resignation from Hutchings Psychiatric Center [HPC] Plaintiff commenced a whistleblower action in Supreme Court against the New York State Office of Mental Health and HPC [Defendants] pursuant to Civil Service Law §75-b and Labor Law §§740 and 741.

Defendants, contending that Supreme Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action set forth in Plaintiff's complaint on the ground that only the Court of Claims has that jurisdiction, moved to dismiss the complaint.

Supreme Court denied Defendants' motion, concluding that it did have subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action in Plaintiff's complaint. Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Considering Defendants' appeal, the Appellate Division noted that in 2010, the New York State Legislature amended the Court of Claims Act to provide that the Court of Claims "shall have jurisdiction ... [t]o hear and determine a claim of any person against the state for a retaliatory personnel action by its officers or employees pursuant to [Civil Service Law §75-b] or [Labor Law §740]".*

Based on the relevant legislative history, "including the concern raised to the legislature that the proposed language would encourage forum shopping," the legislature, in providing the Court of Claims with jurisdiction, did not strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to hear such cases. Thus, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted in the complaint" by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division "unanimously modified" Supreme Court's ruling "on the law" by granting Defendants motion in part and dismissing the Plaintiff's claims advance pursuant to Labor Law §740 and, as modified, the order was affirmed without costs.**

* Court of Claims Act §9[13]

** Defendants alternatively contend on appeal that Plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law §740 should be dismissed because §740 apply only to private sector employers. Plaintiff did not oppose the dismissal of her cause of action brought under color of Labor Law §740 and the Appellate Division so modified the Supreme Court's order.

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

 

Engaging in a physical altercation and disrupting the workplace

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Tiffany Hamilton recommended a 60-day suspension for a hospital employee [Employee] found guilty of initiating a physical altercation with a coworker and disrupting the workplace.

The ALJ found Employee had struck the coworker in the face after the coworker demanded an apology from the Employee for behavior the coworker perceived to be disrespectful. Judge Hamilton also found that the witness reports and testimony established that Employee had caused a workplace disruption by yelling, fighting, and knocking over a water dispenser.

The Appointing Authority had sought termination of Employee for the proved charges, but Judge Hamilton found imposing the penalty of dismissal to be excessive. The ALJ noted that while Employee's misconduct was troubling, the principles of progressive discipline and mitigating circumstances, such as Employee’s commendable work history of almost 20 years, his initial attempts to avoid the altercation, and coworker testimony regarding his professionalism, supported a finding that a lesser penalty should be imposed and so recommended the Employee suspended without pay for sixty days and be retained in his position.

Click HERE to access Judge Hamilton's findings and recommendation posted on the Internet.

___________________________

 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this ebook focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE.

A bill amending the New York Civil Service Law addressing "Teleworking" has been introduced in the New York State Assembly

The proposed legislation, The New  York State Teleworking Expansion Act [Assembly 4850], would amend the New York State Civil Service Law to provide that "each state agency [as defined in §13.2 of the bill] shall establish a policy and program to allow employees to perform all or a portion of their duties through teleworking to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance" except that with respect to employees in a collective bargaining unit such policy and, or, program shall be subject to collective bargaining as otherwise provided by Article 14 of the Civil Service Law. 

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Governmental Employees.

The text of Assembly 4850 is set out below:

                STATE OF NEW YORK

        ________________________________________________________________________

                                          4850

                                2025-2026 Regular Sessions

                    IN ASSEMBLY

                                     February 6, 2025

                                       ___________

        Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  ROZIC,  COLTON,  SIMON,  ROSENTHAL, LUPARDO,

          FORREST, BRONSON, SANTABARBARA, MAMDANI, BORES, FALL, KELLES,  SIMONE,

          SEAWRIGHT,  ALVAREZ  --  read  once  and  referred to the Committee on

          Governmental Employees

        AN ACT to amend the civil service law, in relation to enacting the  "New

          York state teleworking expansion act"

          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-

        bly, do enact as follows:

     1    Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may  be  cited  as

     2  the "New York state teleworking expansion act".

     3    §  2.  The  civil service law is amended by adding a new section 13 to

     4  read as follows:

     5    § 13. Teleworking programs.  1. Each state agency  shall  establish  a

     6  policy  and  program  to  allow employees to perform all or a portion of

     7  their duties  through teleworking to the maximum extent possible without

     8  diminished  employee performance. Each state agency  shall  designate  a

     9  "telework  coordinator" to be responsible for overseeing the implementa-

    10  tion of teleworking programs.

    11    2. For the purposes of this section, the term:

    12    (a) "telework" shall mean to perform normal and regular work functions

    13  on  a  workday that ordinarily would be performed at the state  agency's

    14  principal location at  a  different  location,  thereby  eliminating  or

    15  substantially reducing the physical commute to and from such state agen-

    16  cy's principal location; and

    17    (b)  "state  agency"  shall  mean any state department, board, bureau,

    18  division, commission, committee, public authority, public benefit corpo-

    19  ration, council, office,  or  other  governmental  entity  performing  a

    20  governmental or proprietary function for the state.

    21    3. No agency shall establish a policy pursuant to this section for any

    22  employee  that  is  subject  to a collective bargaining agreement unless

    23  such policy has been mutually agreed  to  between  the  agency  and  the

2

     1  employee  organization that is certified or recognized to represent such

     2  employees, within the meaning  of  article  fourteen  of  this  chapter,

     3  pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

     4    §  3.  This  act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall

     5  have become a law.

         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.

An audit of New York State's Medicaid System by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli finds improperly paid claims

New York State Department of Health’s eMedNY computer system improperly paid $16.2 million in Medicaid claims during a six-month period that started in October 2023, according to an audit released by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. 

“My office pays close attention to Medicaid because it’s critical for so many New Yorkers and a big driver of state spending," DiNapoli said. “Errors can be costly. My office's latest audit found areas where the Department of Health can do better and avoid improper and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. By acting swiftly on the audit's recommendations DOH has already recovered millions of dollars.” 

Overall, the audit found 370 million claims were processed between October 2023 through March 2024, totaling nearly $49.6 billion. 

The bulk of the improper payments, $11.8 million, went to pay 27,480 Medicaid managed care premiums for recipients who were ineligible for managed care coverage because they had comprehensive third-party insurance and should’ve been enrolled in Medicaid fee-for-service instead. As a result of the audit, more than $2.8 million in improper payments have already been recovered. 

Some of the other key findings in the audit include: 

            $2 million was paid for fee-for-service inpatient claims that should have been paid by managed care.

            $1.3 million was paid for newborn birth and maternity claims that contained inaccurate information, such as low newborn birth weights that increased reimbursements.

            $964,333 was paid for inpatient, pharmacy, referred ambulatory, and clinic claims that did not comply with Medicaid policies.

            $126,786 was paid for claims where Medicaid was incorrectly designated as the primary payer instead of another insurer.

            $35,441 was paid for managed care premiums on behalf of incarcerated recipients whose managed care coverage should have been suspended.

The audit also identified 10 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. In response to the findings, DOH removed nine of the providers from the Medicaid program and had not yet resolved the program status of the remaining provider.

The audit made 10 recommendations, including informing hospitals to accurately report to and bill Medicaid, along with identifying where financial recoveries should be made.

The Department of Health’s response included highlighting its actions regarding the audit’s findings as well as noting the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General’s investigative and audit process to ensure Medicaid providers and recipients are complying with the laws and regulations.

Click Medicaid Program: Claims Processing Activity October 1, 2023 Through March 31, 2024 to access the Comptroller's audit posted on the Internet.