For the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, leaving employment without a firm job offer such as a start date for that new employment, does not constitute leaving for good cause

In this appeal of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, [Board], the Appellate Division sustained the Board's decision disqualifying an applicant [Claimant] for unemployment insurance benefits "because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause".

Claimant had advised her then employer [Employer] that she had been accepted into nursing school and the then Employer told Claimant that although she could not continue in her present full-time position while attending school, a per diem position could be created for her. 

Claimant began classes and was advised by the Employer that it "would need a resignation letter" stating her last day of work. Claimant submitted a letter on September 12, resigning effective September 27, following her use of certain accrued leave. 

Claimant had indicated that she had resigned with the understanding that, "in accordance with the [then Employer's] general policy, the per diem position had to be approved and posted prior to her being able to apply for it, and no set start date or salary for the position had been determined".

Some two weeks after her resignation was effective the per diem position had not yet been posted and Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant received one payment of benefits before the Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. 

At the hearing which followed, the Employer explained that organization-wide delays with getting new positions posted and maintained that Employer was committed to formally hiring Claimant for the per diem role once the administrative process was complete and the position could be posted. 

Ultimately Claimant was formally hired for the per diem position but while the instant appeal to the Appellate Division and the Board application were pending, the Board reopened the matter on its own motion and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision on the merits.

With respect to Claimants appeal to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence". 

Further, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 222 AD3d 1099, explained "It is well established that resigning from a position in order to pursue academic studies, while commendable, constitutes a personal and non-compelling reason for separating from one's employment, disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits".  The Appellate Division's decision then observed that "leaving employment without a firm job offer, most significantly here a start date for that new employment, does not constitute good cause."

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

A member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System must be a bona fide retiree in order to be eligible to receive retirement benefits from the system

The Petitioner in this action appealed the denial of his application for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 service retirement benefits by the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS].

Petitioner worked as a correction officer for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for over 34 years, resigning from that position in April 2021. Petitioner, however, had commenced working for the Granville Central School District as a school bus monitor in March 2021. 

On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed an application with ERS seeking service retirement benefits with the school district pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15, indicating an effective retirement date of May 15, 2021. Petitioner also advised the school district that he was retiring on May 15 "with the intent of continuing [his] employment" with the school district. 

Ultimately Petitioner resigned from his position as a bus monitor on October 15, 2021, for health reasons, but continued to work for the school district as a consultant.

In May 2019, the New York State's Retirement System's Pension Integrity Bureau [Bureau] commenced investigating retirement applications submitted by individuals who had predominantly worked as correction officers but were seeking benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15. In a letter dated February 2, 2022, the Bureau informed Petitioner that, after reviewing his application, he was "not eligible to retire under the article 15 plan as of the effective date of [his] retirement (i.e., May 15, 2021) because [he] did not have a bona fide termination from employment." 

Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer denied Petitioner's application, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had a bona fide termination of his employment. The Comptroller affirmed the Hearing Officer's findings and decision. Petitioner then initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.

The Appellate Division, noting that:

1. "The Comptroller has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence"; and 

 2. The Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 does not define the term "retirement,"; explained it employed the commonly understood meaning of the term, which is "to withdraw from one's position or occupation" or to "conclude one's working or professional career", quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "retirement".

Sustaining the Comptroller's interpretation that an applicant for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 benefits "must demonstrate that he or she actually retired from public service employment in the first instance" and concluding "that it is entirely rational and reasonable for [the Comptroller] to require that such retirement be genuine, i.e., the applicant must demonstrate that there has been a legitimate cessation or termination of employment.

Opining that "... the Comptroller's reasonable interpretation that applicants for Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 benefits demonstrate a legitimate cessation or termination of employment prior to re-employment does not constitute fraud, misrepresentation, deception or similar misconduct in order to implicate the exception allowing the doctrine of estoppel to be invoked against a state agency, held that "substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that [Petitioner] was ineligible for benefits because he did not actually retire from service on May 15, 2021".

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

Courts Are Facing an Artificial Intelligence Tidal Wave

Judges have been facing making decisions concerning the admission of Artificial Intelligence [AI] created evidence at trial with increasing frequency. This issue is the focus of a recent article posted on the Internet by Rochester attorney Nicole Black, initially published in her column in The Daily Record.

Click HERE to access Ms. Black's article.

Selected reports issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending May 23, 2025

DiNAPOLI RELEASES GUIDE TO FEDERAL FUNDING IN NEW YORK

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full report.

A new online resource released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli details the vast array of services that federal funding supports amid the continued uncertainty in Washington over potential cuts for states, including funds for Medicaid and other health programs, education, social welfare, transportation, public protection, environment and other vital programs.

“Actions taken in Washington to cut health care, food assistance, infrastructure and other critical programs will harm New Yorkers,” DiNapoli said. “Major cuts will reduce the services the state provides that simply cannot be replaced by state taxpayers. Understanding how New Yorkers are served by federal dollars will be essential in seeing how future changes to federal spending will impact our residents and communities."

DiNapoli’s guide presents federal revenues in the state budget and federal support of the state’s safety net programs, which help New Yorkers from their youngest years in childcare and K-12 education through their senior years with Social Security benefits. In addition, the new tool provides spending by major funding streams and functions, including grants for various Medicaid programs, clean water, and children’s health insurance programs. It also includes a county-by-county breakdown in enrollment and benefits for programs like Medicaid, Social Security, housing assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

Insights include:

• The state received $96.7 billion in federal dollars in state fiscal year (SFY) 2025, representing more than 38% of the $249 billion in revenue received by New York in that fiscal year.
• Nearly 3 million New Yorkers rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest food assistance program.
• Nearly 9,000 (4.7%) members of the state’s workforce are backed by federal funding, with the share significantly higher in some agencies, such as 83% at the Department of Labor.
• Over 3.7 million New York residents received Social Security benefits in 2023.
• Over 150,000 children received childcare assistance funded primarily by the federal government.
• More than one-third of residents are on Medicaid in eight counties: Bronx, Chemung, Kings, Montgomery, Queens, Richmond, Rockland and Sullivan.

DiNapoli has released multiple reports this year highlighting the relationship between the state and the federal government, including his annual balance of payments report, and analysis of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The online guide will be expanded with additional analysis and reports as federal actions become more concrete.

Online Tool
Federal Funding in New York

Other Resources
New York’s Balance of Payments in the Federal Budget
Series of Briefs Tracking New York City Federal Funding

###

 DiNAPOLI RELEASES MUNICIPAL AUDITS

                 Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full report.

Fairview Fire District – Financial Operations (Dutchess County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage and oversee the district’s financial operations and were not transparent. Auditors found limited assurance that the information used by the board and district officials to make financial decisions was accurate and complete. Taxpayers had limited access to financial information to help ensure they could make informed decisions related to district operations. The board improperly assigned the duties of the district treasurer to an independent contractor. Unrealistic budgets increased the burden placed on taxpayers and resulted in the district’s reserve funds, in total, increasing by approximately $1.5 million (84%) over the last five fiscal years. Board meeting minutes did not always contain complete information on formal board actions and were not made available for public review in a timely manner.

Town of Saugerties – Claims Auditing (Ulster County)

The board did not properly audit claims or authorize credit card purchases. Auditors reviewed 50 claims, totaling $2.1 million and 50 credit card purchases, totaling $28,815. Fifteen purchases, totaling $91,979, did not comply with the town’s purchasing policy. For example, town officials paid a contractor $46,500 to clear debris for the highway department without competitive bidding or documentation that it was exempt. Auditors also found 36 credit card purchases, totaling $10,868, that were not properly authorized, including an unauthorized individual who used the town supervisor's credit card to make a purchase without the supervisor's knowledge. The equipment purchased was then shipped to the town’s former video supply contractor. The supervisor was unable to verify whether the town received this purchase due to the lack of supporting documentation. Also, the supervisor used a town credit card to pay for lunch to celebrate an employee’s birthday, which is not an appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Rhinecliff Fire District – Board Oversight (Dutchess County)

The board did not adequately provide oversight of financial operations, hindering its ability to make informed financial decisions and assure taxpayers that the district’s financial activities were adequately accounted for and reported. The board did not complete mandated financial oversight training or ensure proper accounting records were maintained. The board did not make certain required annual financial information was filed with the State Comptroller’s office since 2009. It did not ensure bank reconciliations were performed, conduct an annual audit of the secretary-treasurer’s records or develop and adopt written multiyear financial and capital plans, among other issues.

City of Amsterdam – Budget Review (Montgomery County)

The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the 2025-26 proposed budget are reasonable. However, auditors identified certain revenue and expenditure projections and other matters that should be reviewed. Auditors noted the mayor submitted the 2025-26 proposed budget to the council on May 6, 2025, or 35 days after the charter-established deadline. The proposed budget for the recreation fund is not structurally balanced because it includes a subsidy from the general fund to finance its operations. The proposed budget for the water fund does not include appropriations for real property taxes that will be owed to local governments and school districts for properties that the city owns outside of Amsterdam for the purpose of supplying water to the city. The proposed budget allocates appropriations for personal services, contractual expenditures and employee benefits between the operating funds using unsupported allocation methods. The city’s proposed budget includes a tax levy of $6,378,809, which is within the legal limit.

###

FORMER HANNIBAL FIRE CHIEF PLEADS GUILTY TO STEALING FROM FIRE COMPANY

Former Hannibal Fire Chief Chris Emmons pleaded guilty today to Grand Larceny for stealing from the town’s fire company and agreed to pay $9,838 in restitution, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Oswego County District Attorney Anthony J. DiMartino, Jr., and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced.

“Mr. Emmons diverted money meant to protect his community to fund his own interests by deceiving the fire company that it would receive the proceeds,” DiNapoli said. “Emmons betrayed not only the company but all who rely upon it. I thank District Attorney DiMartino and Superintendent James for their continued partnership and ensuring Emmons was held accountable.”

“The Oswego County District Attorney’s office thanks the New York State Police and the New York State Comptroller’s Office for their assistance in this matter,” District Attorney DiMartino, Jr. said. “With the concerted efforts of these agencies, we achieved a just and proper result. The defendant will immediately be required to pay restitution for the monies he deprived from the Hannibal Fire Company as determined by the Comptroller’s audit, as well as community service and supervision. This conduct will never be tolerated and will be prosecuted to deter such similar illegal conduct.”

“Mr. Emmons’ guilty plea illustrates the duplicity he presented to cheat the fire company out of its rightful funds,” Superintendent James said. “The disruption of this act serves as a reminder that we will not tolerate those who choose to profit from this activity. We will continue to partner with the Comptroller’s Office and the Oswego County District Attorney’s Office to hold those who defraud public sector organizations accountable.”

Emmons used the Hannibal Fire Company’s funds to build a go-kart track, Hannibal Kartway, claiming that its proceeds would benefit the company. Emmons, his family and others ran the track for five years, from 2017 to 2022, until an audit by DiNapoli’s office discovered discrepancies in the track’s books. A subsequent investigation found that rather than turning the money over to the company, Emmons had pocketed the Kartway’s profits. The investigation also found that Emmon’s father, Carl Emmons Sr., closed the Kartway’s bank account upon learning of the Comptroller’s examination and the remaining funds were transferred to his bank account. Carl Emmons Sr. faces pending charges of Grand Larceny in the fourth degree.

Chris Emmons pleaded guilty before Judge Karen Brandt Brown of Oswego County Court. He is scheduled to appear again on May 22, 2026.

###

  

DiNAPOLI: SYRACUSE MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO STEALING NEARLY $22,000 IN PENSION CHECKS SENT TO HIS DECEASED MOTHER

A Syracuse man pleaded guilty yesterday to stealing nearly $22,000 in pension payments sent to his deceased mother, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Onondaga County District Attorney William J. Fitzpatrick and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced. The defendant, Michael Glinski, 45, was arrested in January 2025 following an investigation by DiNapoli’s office.

“Mr. Glinski tried to hide his mother’s death to cash her pension checks. Attempts to steal from and defraud our pension system will be rooted out,” DiNapoli said. “My thanks to DA Fitzpatrick and Superintendent James for their partnership in holding the defendant accountable.”

James said, “I commend our State Police members and partners from the State Comptroller’s Office for their devoted work on this investigation. Mr. Glinski knowingly defrauded the New York State pension system, taking benefits from those who rightfully earned them. The State Police will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable individuals who mistakenly think they can get away with these crimes.”

Glinski’s mother, a clerk with the Village of Solvay Police Department, retired in August of 2014 and received a monthly pension check. She also received her deceased husband’s pension payment as a beneficiary since 2019. When she passed away in October 2021, both payments should have stopped, but the New York State and Local Retirement System was not notified of her death until July 2022. Her payments then stopped, and an investigation was launched. 

DiNapoli’s investigators determined that Glinski had deposited 17 pension checks, totaling $21,946.36, into his personal bank account by endorsing the checks using his power of attorney, which he knew had ended under the law at the time of his mother’s death.    

Glinski pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree in Onondaga County Court before Judge Mary Anne Doherty. He is due back in court on June 23.

###

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 emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

In an effort to vacate an arbitration award the burden is on the petitioner to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence

The petitioner, Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. [Union], and Nassau County [Respondent], entered into a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] that was effective from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Although the CBA expired, many of its terms, including the particular provision presently at issue in this CPLR Article 75 action  remained in effect.

The Union filed a grievance asserting that the County had violated a provision of the CBA when it declined to credit negotiating unit members credit compensatory time off for  who were required to report to work while other negotiating unit members were directed to stay home due to COVID-19 exposure during a state of emergency declared by the County in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately the matter was submitted to arbitration. 

After a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying the the Union's grievance. The arbitrator determined that the County had not violated relevant section of the CBA because that provision did not apply in the instant circumstance. The Union challenged the arbitration award and  commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Supreme Court "denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding". The Union appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v City of Long Beach, 214 AD3d at 736-737, noted that the burden is on the petitioner "to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence" as  "Courts may vacate an arbitrator's award only on the grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)". Pointing out that the Union only claimed that the arbitrator "exceeded his power", the Appellate Division opined that "Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power".

Further, the opinion notes that "'Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies" and cannot  examine the merits of an arbitration award nor substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one.

 Contrary to the Union's contention, the Appellate Division held that the arbitration award, which rested upon the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA, was supported by the record, was not irrational, and did not rewrite the terms of the CBA. 

Finding that the Union failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that it was irrational and "An arbitration award is irrational only where there is no evidence whatever to justify the award, or where the award gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties", the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding."

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