Local government and school audits recently posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller

Click on the text in color to access the full audit.

On July 24, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following local government and school audits on the Internet:

Remsenburg-Speonk Union Free School District – Financial Management (Suffolk County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage the district’s fund balance. The board adopted budgets that annually overestimated appropriations by an average of $1.3 million (9%) per year, or a cumulative total of approximately $6.4 million. The majority of the overestimated appropriations ($5.6 million) were for special education instruction. From fiscal years 2019-20 through 2022-23, the district’s reported surplus fund balance ranged from 10 to 15% of the upcoming year’s budget, which was $962,000 to $1.8 million over the 4% statutory limit. While district officials appropriated a total of $5.5 million of surplus fund balance over the last five years, officials only used $350,000 of this amount after experiencing operating surpluses in four of the last five years. When the unused appropriated fund balance is added back to the district’s reported surplus fund balance, the recalculated amount ranged from approximately 12 to 23% of the upcoming year’s budget, which exceeds the statutory limit by 8 to 19 percentage points. At the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year, the recalculated surplus fund balance was $1.9 million, which exceeded the statutory limit by nearly $1.3 million. Despite having excess surplus fund balance available, the board increased taxes by an average of about $318,000 (2%) each year from 2019-20 to 2023-24.

Center Moriches Union Free School District – Payroll (Suffolk County)

Officials did not make accurate, approved and supported payroll payments to employees for tutoring, covering classes, chaperoning and sports scorekeeping. Time sheets for 13 employees were not adequately supported to ensure payments totaling $100,103 were accurately paid. Auditors questioned the reasonableness of $14,190 in payments for 258 chaperoning and sports scorekeeping events due to various discrepancies with game schedules. For example, time sheets were submitted with overlapping game times and for dates when there were no games scheduled. Officials did not develop and adopt a written payroll policy or procedures to convey expectations and processes to be followed for ensuring payroll payments to employees for miscellaneous activities were accurate, approved and supported.

Capital Region Board of Cooperative Services (BOCES) – State Aid

Although officials properly claimed state aid totaling $3.8 million for administrative expenditures, BOCES officials claimed excess state aid for facility rental costs. Because they improperly included this rental revenue received by BOCES without deducting portions that were not paid by component districts, all 23 districts collectively received almost $2 million more state aid than they were entitled to. In addition, officials properly claimed BOCES aid totaling $39.3 million for approved aidable services and reached out to State Education Department (SED) in November 2023 to correct an identified error. However, officials did not subsequently reconcile payments from SED to their financial application to verify corrections were made and that all state aid was claimed for the 2023-24 fiscal year. As a result, two component districts did not receive $29,918 of state aid owed to them.

Hyde Park Fire and Water District – Procurement (Dutchess County)

The board did not always procure capital assets, goods and services in a cost-effective and transparent manner. Specifically, the board did not seek competition when entering into a contract to purchase a ladder truck for $1.9 million or maintain written support to demonstrate that the district properly used an exception to the competitive bidding requirements. The board also did not obtain quotes when purchasing six goods and services totaling $41,316 and did not request proposals for one professional service contract totaling $19,043, as required by policy. Also, one trustee did not publicly disclose, in writing, his interest in a contract when the district purchased property from a separately incorporated fire department for $160,000.

Town of Spencer – Disbursements (Tioga County)

The board did not conduct a thorough audit of all claims paid during the audit period. As a result, auditors identified claims being paid without the board’s knowledge. Auditors reviewed all 647 non-payroll disbursements made during the audit period totaling approximately $2.1 million and identified 69 disbursements, totaling $248,900, that were not included on the board’s list of all claims that have been audited and approved for payment. Auditors also identified 16 disbursements totaling $32,100 that did not match the amount disbursed on the canceled check image. In addition, auditors reviewed 123 disbursements totaling $262,100 to determine whether they were properly supported and found 33, totaling $28,100, that lacked adequate detail for the board to complete a claims audit.

Roosevelt Fire District – Length of Service Awards Program (LOSAP) (Dutchess County)

The board did not effectively monitor all aspects of the district’s LOSAP. Specifically, the board did not ensure that the LOSAP was annually audited in accordance with state law. During the audit period, the value of the district’s LOSAP assets declined and so the district’s annual contributions had to steadily increase to ensure that there were enough assets to cover all benefits paid to the LOSAP participants and beneficiaries. The board also could not demonstrate that the procurement of LOSAP investment management services was made in accordance with the district’s procurement policy.

Pine Plains Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Dutchess County/Columbia County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 12 of the 333 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. Of the 259 water outlets sampled for testing, 50 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors reviewed 15 of the water outlets with actionable lead levels and determined that all were remediated. Although the director of facilities remediated the water outlets that exceeded the lead action level, he did not have a remedial action plan that documented which water outlets exceeded the lead action level and the remedial actions taken, or which water outlets were exempted from sampling and how they would be secured against use. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 12 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.

York Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Livingston County/Wyoming County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 130 of the 223 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan or a remedial action plan. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 130 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 74 water outlets the district sampled for testing, three water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined district officials took appropriate remedial actions on the three outlets. District officials did not report any laboratory test results for the testing cycle to their local health department, to staff, parents and/or guardians, or through DOH’s Health Electronic Response Data System.

Greenwood Lake Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up (Orange County)

The review assessed the Greenwood Lake Union Free School District’s progress, as of February 2025, in implementing recommendations from a prior audit, Greenwood Lake Union Free School District – Procurement and Claims Processing (2021M-147), released in December 2021. The audit found district officials did not always procure goods and services in a cost-effective manner or ensure claims were audited for accuracy and completeness. The audit included nine recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s procurement and claims processing procedures. Of the nine recommendations, all were implemented.

Port Jervis City School District – Audit Follow Up (Orange County/Sullivan County)

The review assessed the Port Jervis City School District’s progress, as of February/March 2025, in implementing recommendations from a prior audit, Port Jervis City School District – Financial Condition (2022M-152), released in December 2021. The audit determined the board and district officials did not effectively manage the district’s financial condition and so it levied more taxes than needed to fund operations. The audit included six recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s financial condition. The district has made some progress implementing corrective action. Of the six audit recommendations, one recommendation was fully implemented, two recommendations were partially implemented and three recommendations were not implemented.

On July 31, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet: 

Village of Addison (Steuben County)

DiNapoli’s office began a comprehensive review, comprised of three audits, of the village in 2022 and found the clerk-treasurer had been running the financial operations of the village with no oversight. 

As a result of the Comptroller’s audit and subsequent investigation, the former clerk-treasurer, who resigned in March 2023, was arrested in November of that year and charged with misappropriating funds and making unauthorized payments totaling more than $1.1 million over a 19-year period. In May 2024, she pleaded guilty to one count of first degree corrupting the government (B felony) and was sentenced to three to nine years in state prison in August 2024. 

N.B. As part of her sentence, the former clerk-treasurer was required to forfeit her monthly public pension. This sentence represents the first time a public official in New York surrendered her pension as a penalty for corruption while in office.

Summaries of the three Village of Addison audits released:

1. Former Clerk-Treasurer’s Misappropriation of Funds

The former clerk-treasurer did not properly deposit, record, report or disburse village funds and misappropriated more than $1.1 million for personal gain. The former clerk-treasurer was able to perform these acts without detection because the board failed to fulfill its fiscal responsibilities, provide oversight and segregate the duties of the former clerk-treasurer. She misappropriated revenue collections totaling $925,757 and made questionable or inappropriate expenditures totaling $94,562 and inappropriate and unauthorized payroll payments totaling $341,992. She also did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records, provide financial reports to the board, file payroll reports or remit biweekly withholdings in a timely manner, resulting in approximately $5,000 in penalties and interest.

2. Board Oversight

The board did not provide adequate financial oversight, obtain periodic financial reports, monitor the budget, investigate budget and revenue anomalies reported by the outside accountant, perform an effective claims audit or annually audit the former clerk-treasurer’s records. The board’s failure to fulfill its fiscal responsibilities created a negative “tone at the top” and a weak control environment that enabled the former clerk-treasurer to abuse her position for personal gain.

3. Payroll

The board did not ensure the former clerk-treasurer accurately paid wages and leave benefits for the nine full-time individuals employed as of March 2023, and two that left employment during the audit period. The former clerk-treasurer overpaid employees and made inappropriate and unauthorized payments to herself and other employees totaling $341,992 and tried to pay herself an additional $26,613. She failed to adhere to the established policy and collective bargaining agreement regarding employees’ leave benefits.

Town of Lodi – Town Hall Capital Project (Seneca County)

The board did not adequately manage the Town Hall capital project, which included the renovation of a church into the new town hall and food pantry. The board did not develop or formally establish a total estimated project cost or provide an itemized project budget or detailed timeline. The board also did not oversee the competitive bidding process for the pantry portion of the project. The board and its contractors did not ensure that required permits were obtained and required inspections were performed throughout the project. Work associated with six change orders totaling $65,537 was completed without the board’s approval. The board further approved 17 payments totaling approximately $930,000 to construction contractors without adequate supporting documentation, such as a certification that the work was performed and completed according to contract terms.

Village of Herkimer – Payroll (Herkimer County)

Village officials paid salaries and wages as authorized but did not maintain adequate employee time records or ensure separation payments were accurate or adequately supported. Auditors found employees were paid for overtime that was not always adequately documented or consistent with their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Direct supervisors also did not review or certify payroll registers, including employee names, hours worked, gross pay, deductions, and net pay, before officials and employees were paid, as required by law. Auditors reviewed pay and time records for 15 employees that were paid a total of $260,030. In general, salaries and wages were paid as authorized and employees’ hours were correctly entered into the payroll system. However, time records were not always prepared by the employees, signed by the employees, included the employees’ beginning and ending times, or reviewed by a supervisor. Auditors also identified three employees who retired from the village and received benefit payments totaling $128,254. While calculations were available for these employees to substantiate the cash payments and benefits each received, these calculations were not always consistent with the language in the applicable CBA or there was no individual employment agreement or local enactment to support the amounts paid. As a result, these employees received either questionable or unsupported separation payments and benefits totaling $73,877.

Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Albany County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 61 of the 322 (19%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted from sampling, how they would be secured against use, and what remedial actions were planned or occurred. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 61 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.

Chazy Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Clinton County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 115 of the 178 (65%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan or a remedial action plan. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 115 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 46 water outlets that the district sampled and tested, 15 water outlets (33%) exceeded the lead action level. Although district officials took appropriate remedial actions by removing or replacing these 15 water outlets, these actions were not documented in a remedial action plan to show when these water outlets were taken out of service, how they were remediated if not replaced or removed, and when they were returned to service. District officials did not always report testing results properly or in the required time periods to all required parties.

Commack Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Suffolk County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 20 water outlets (16 shower outlets and four bathroom outlets located in elementary school classrooms) of the 521 water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. Auditors determined district officials did not review or update the sampling plan to identify all water outlets. Auditors also reviewed the test results for 40 of the 135 water outlets that exceeded the lead action level and determined the district did not effectively remediate 24 of the 40 water outlets. District officials did not properly report laboratory test results for testing conducted, including the results showing 135 of 765 (18%) water outlets were above the lead action level, within the required time periods or to all required parties. Test results identifying sampled water outlets with actionable lead levels were reported to the local health department an average of 18 days late, instead of one business day as required; and staff, parents and guardians were not notified of these results in writing, as required.

East Bloomfield Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Ontario County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 95 of the 246 (39%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 95 water outlets not sampled for testing or properly exempted by the district, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. District officials did not include all water outlets in their sampling plan. Although the district’s remedial action plan specified the controls implemented for water outlets the district exempted, how they were secured against use and listed all water outlets that exceeded the lead action level, it did not contain enough detail to identify individual exempt outlets and not all implemented controls were considered effective by DOH guidance. Auditors found remediation efforts were not adequate for eight of the 31 water outlets (26%) that exceeded the lead action level. While district officials notified the local health department and staff, parents and guardians of the 31 water outlets exceeding the lead action level from the initial test results, they did not follow all of the requirements, among other issues.

Evergreen Charter School – Credit Card Purchases (Nassau County)

Credit card purchases were not always properly approved or adequately supported to show they were for a proper school purpose. The board of trustees and school officials did not develop and adopt a credit card policy or procedures for monitoring and using the school’s 13 credit cards that were assigned to 13 school officials. Auditors found 255 credit card charges totaling $113,589 were not properly approved or adequately supported. Twelve of the 18 general purpose credit card payments, totaling $134,982, did not have the required signatures for payment. Reward points were accumulated and used during the audit period but officials could not explain who used the points and for what purpose.

On August 1, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following local government and school audits on the Internet:

Town of Oxford – Financial Condition (Chenango County) 

The board did not receive complete and accurate financial records and reports from the current and former supervisors, or request additional financial information, which hindered its ability to monitor the town’s financial condition, including fund balance and balance sheet details. As a result, the general, town-wide and highway funds began the 2024 fiscal year with a combined $206,637 fund balance deficit. Also, the board appropriated $315,279 of nonexistent town-wide fund balance in the 2019 through 2023 fiscal years and used $350,000 in revenue anticipation notes to address cash flow issues, which caused the town to incur $11,430 in borrowing costs.

Village of Penn Yan – Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Overtime (Yates County) 

Because village officials did not properly approve, monitor or control overtime costs of WTP employees, water customers may have been unnecessarily burdened with unneeded overtime and other costs. From June 1, 2021 through Nov. 22, 2024, WTP operators worked three different schedules that incurred significant overtime costs totaling $338,108, which annually ranged between 28-32% of the total wages paid of approximately $1.1 million. The current chief water operator accounted for the majority of the non-weekend overtime hours and 63% of these costs totaling $89,667. Additionally, the department of public works director and deputy director did not approve overtime hours prior to the WTP operators working overtime as required by the village’s employee handbook.

Cuba-Rushford Central School District – Cafeteria Purchases (Allegany County) 

Although the superintendent knew that district policy prohibited district employees from using district-purchased assets for personal use, he directed the manager to purchase food totaling approximately $1,300 for a private, personal event. Without the superintendent’s involvement, the manager also purchased food totaling $100 for a district teacher to serve at a different private non-district event. Both purchases were inappropriate and not for proper district purposes. The superintendent and other employee reimbursed the district for the purchases made. The remaining 267 purchases reviewed by auditors totaling approximately $541,000 were for proper district purposes.

Southwestern Central School District – Claims Audit (Chautauqua County)

The claims auditors did not properly audit all claims prior to payment. Of the 1,467 claims totaling $24.2 million, auditors reviewed 266 claims totaling $7.7 million and determined that 230 claims (86%) totaling $6.5 million should not have been approved by the claims auditors for payment because the claim packets did not contain sufficient supporting documentation to allow the claims auditor to determine whether the claim was a valid legal obligation, a proper charge against the district, correct or in compliance with the district’s purchasing policies. Auditors also determined that 14 Erie-2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) claims (5%) totaling $5.2 million were not properly audited as it was the board’s responsibility to do so because the claims auditors were employees of BOCES.

Cheektowaga-Maryvale Union Free School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Erie County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. Auditors determined 207 of the 567 (37%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Additionally, district officials did not take appropriate remedial action for 22 of 39 water outlets reviewed that exceeded the lead action level to prevent students or staff from drinking from these outlets.

Indian Lake Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Hamilton County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 36 of the 76 (47%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Of the 12 water outlets the district sampled for testing, four water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that three of the four outlets with actionable lead levels had effective controls to prevent them from being used for drinking or cooking, but the district did not have a remedial action plan with the details and dates of action taken evidencing that the water outlet was disabled before the lead level was reduced. District officials did not always properly report testing results to all required parties or within the required time periods.

Glen Cove City School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and DOH regulations. Auditors determined 149 of the 313 (48%) water outlets identified were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. District officials did not properly secure any of the water outlets they exempted against use. Of the 82 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 19 water outlets (23%) exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that 10 of these 19 outlets (53%) with actionable lead levels were still in service without a follow-up test showing they were now below the lead action level or that controls were in place to secure these water outlets against use. District officials did not notify their local health department directly, within one business day of receiving testing results showing the 19 water outlets were above lead action levels, and never notified staff, parents and/or guardians of the test results exceeding the lead action level in writing within 10 business days, as required.

Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency – Audit Follow-Up (Dutchess County)

The purpose of our review was to assess the City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency’s (IDA’s) progress, as of September 2024, in implementing our recommendations in the audit, City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency – Project Approval and Monitoring (2021M-168), released in July 2022. The audit determined that the IDA’s board did not properly evaluate and approve IDA projects and monitor the performance of businesses that received financial benefits. The audit included eight recommendations to help officials. The review found IDA officials implemented five recommendations, partially implemented one recommendation, and did not implement one recommendation. Auditors could not determine the implementation status for one recommendation because IDA officials have not entered into any new agreements since the initial audit was completed.

Application for accidental disability retirement benefits denied as the result of the applicant's failing to satisfy the notice provisions required by law

Petitioner filed an application for accidental disability retirement [ADR] benefits based on psychological injuries she alleged she had sustained during an assault that occurred at her workplace. Petitioner's application for ADR was denied by the retirement system because Petitioner had not complied with the notice provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law §363(c).*

Ultimately a Hearing Officer sustained the denial of Petitioner's application for ADR benefits, finding, among other things, that Petitioner did not provide the Retirement System:

[1] Notice of the nature and extent of her injuries within 90 days of the incident; and

[2] The statutory exceptions with respect to such notice requirement did not apply in this instance.** 

Upon administrative review, the New York State Comptroller [Respondent] sustained the Hearing Officer's decision and Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Respondent's determination.

Observing that Petitioner contends, and the Appellate Division said it agreed, that Petitioner's employer had actual notice of the incident at the time of its occurrence, the Appellate Division's decision noted that the statute "requires written notice" and to prevail absent such written notice Petitioner was required to demonstrate that an exception to the statutory notice requirement applied in her situation.

Addressing the specific exceptions cited by Petitioner, the Court's decision stated  that Petitioner "did not file a claim for workers' compensation benefits, premised upon her alleged psychological injuries, until nearly 2½ years after the underlying incident occurred and well beyond the 30-day notice requirement set forth in Workers' Compensation Law §18." Further, the Appellate Division opined that "Even assuming that the Workers' Compensation Board elected to excuse this defect on the basis that [Petitioner's] employer had actual knowledge of the accident ... any decision in that regard would neither be binding upon [Respondent] nor preclude the denial of [Petitioner's ADR]  application."

The Appellate Division then said that it was not persuaded that Petitioner may avail herself of "the good cause exception". While there was no question that an investigation was conducted almost immediately after the incident and numerous reports, summaries and statements were filed promptly thereafter, none of those documents filed, including Petitioner's own statements, described the nature of the assault as herein alleged, "nor do those contemporaneous records make mention of any injury". 

Significantly the Court said there is "nothing irrational or unreasonable about [Respondent's] interpretation of the regulation as providing that the event that triggers the notice requirement is the occurrence that resulted in the disability, not the diagnosis of such disability".

Finding that the documentary evidence upon which Petitioner relied "failed to describe the nature of the accident and the resulting injuries alleged", the Appellate Division concluded that substantial evidence supported the Respondent's finding that Petitioner "cannot avail herself of the good cause exception" and sustained the Respondent's determination.

* Retirement and Social Security Law §363(c)(a) provides that "no application for accidental disability retirement benefits shall be approved unless the applicant has filed with respondent, within 90 days of the incident upon which the alleged disability is based, written notice of, among other things, the particulars of the incident and the nature and extent of the injuries sustained.

**Exceptions to the statutory notice requirement are provided for and include, as relevant here, where "notice of such accident [has been] filed in accordance with the provisions of the [W]orkers' [C]ompensation [L]aw" or "for good cause shown as provided by [the applicable] rules and regulations". 

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

A party must satisfy a very heavy burden when seeking to have an arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds

The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS] issued a notice of suspension and discipline to one of its employees [Petitioner] alleging that, among other things, Petitioner falsely held herself out as a police officer, executed an unauthorized traffic stop and arrested a motorist without cause. 

Petitioner grieved the 15 charges of misconduct DOCCS filed against her in accordance with the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement between DOCCS and the Public Employees Federation, Petitioner's collective bargaining unit representative. Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator rejected Petitioner's version of the incident as not credible, found Petitioner guilty of seven misconduct charges arising from the "motorist incident" but declined to decide the remaining eight charges, Charges 8 through and including Charge 15, stemming from allegedly inaccurate timesheets and vehicle logs. 

After reviewing Petitioner's personnel record, the arbitrator offered Petitioner a choice of penalties: 

(A) no reinstatement with an award of some back pay; or 

(B) reinstatement with no back pay for the 14-month suspension, loss of eight months of accruals, and completion of a five-day course on the use of force or anger management. 

Petitioner chose option (B), but DOCCS refused to reinstate Petitioner.

Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding to confirm the award and DOCCS cross-moved to vacate so much of the award "as assumed — rather than found — that [Petitioner] was not responsible for charges 8 through 15. Further, DOCCS argued that Petitioner's reinstatement violated public policy. 

Supreme Court granted DOCCS' cross-motion, concluding that strong public policies against "unauthorized use of force, unlawful arrests and impersonating a police officer" could not be reconciled with an award reinstating Plaintiff.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order partially vacating the award without reaching the merits of Petitioner's public-policy argument, reasoning that the arbitrator should determine the outstanding misconduct charges first and remitted the matter to the arbitrator.

On remittal, the arbitrator found Petitioner not guilty of charges 8 through 15 in a supplemental award and issued the same penalty options. 

Petitioner again chose reinstatement and DOCCS again refused to reinstate Petitioner. DOCCS and Respondent again appealed. Supreme Court agreed with Respondent, vacated the penalty and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator for a determination of a "different penalty". DOCCS appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, noting that "A court may vacate an arbitrator's award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)", ruled that "Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that 'violates a strong public policy'", noting that "An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds 'where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State'".

Observing that there was "no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Petitioner's guilt and penalty under the CBA", the Appellate Division said that its review in the instant appeal focuses on whether "the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns". [Emphasis supplied in the decision.]

Finding that DOCCS had not demonstrated such a conflict exists between constitutional, statutory and decisional law and the result of the arbitration award — reinstating Petitioner after a 14-month unpaid suspension, partial loss of accruals and completion of a five-day training and that the legal authorities cited by DOCCS set out generally applicable law,  but "the public policy considerations each authority embodies are too general to support vacating the arbitrator's penalty."

Concluding that DOCCS had not met its "very heavy burden" in seeking to have the arbitrator's award judicially overturned on public policy grounds, the Appellate Division said it was "constrained to confirm the award". 

Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued audit reports concerning the New York state departments and agencies listed below

On June 15, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were posted on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the text of the audit.

Department of Agriculture and Markets/Department of Health – Oversight of the Nourish New York Program (Follow-Up) (2024-F-27)

Nourish NY, jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture and Markets (AGM) and the Department of Health (DOH), supplies surplus New York-grown agricultural products (e.g., milk, apples, squash) to populations in need through the state’s network of food relief organizations (i.e., regional food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens) for distribution to people experiencing food insecurity. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, found that both AGM and DOH needed to strengthen controls to ensure that only eligible products and expenses are funded by Nourish NY. Gaps in oversight create a risk that funding from Nourish NY may not be going toward the purchase of eligible agricultural products that benefit state vendors and support the state’s broader agribusiness needs. AGM and DOH made significant progress in addressing concerns from the initial audit report. Of the report’s five audit recommendations, four were implemented and one was partially implemented.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Oversight of Homeless Shelters (Follow-Up) (2024-F-31)

The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) oversees the state’s network of emergency homeless shelters, which includes large former hotels, apartment houses and armories as well as smaller multi-family houses, specifically designed housing units, and motels. OTDA is responsible for supervising, inspecting and enforcing shelter compliance with applicable rules and regulations. A prior audit, issued in March 2020, found OTDA was not adequately overseeing homeless shelters. Auditors observed structural damage, mold, vermin, bug infestations, excessive garbage in rooms and missing or malfunctioning smoke detectors. OTDA needs to improve risk assessment, information tracking and monitoring of corrective actions and enforcement of existing consequences for violations. OTDA made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the report’s eight audit recommendations, five were implemented, one was partially implemented and two were not implemented.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Homeless Services Housing Needs Assessment (Follow-Up) (2024-F-36)

Homeless shelters across the state provide various services to individuals and families, including assessment of needs, case management, access to health care, treatment for substance abuse, childcare services and assistance with finding permanent housing. According to its 2023 Annual Report, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) oversaw a network of 580 transitional homeless shelters statewide. A prior audit, issued in August 2023, found that OTDA was not adequately ensuring timely completion of assessment and planning activities early in a client’s shelter stay. Delayed access to services prevents a client from achieving independence. In a sample, auditors found that 70% of clients did not transition to permanent housing. OTDA also failed to collect and analyze aggregate data to identify and address the primary causes of this failure. OTDA made limited progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, one was fully implemented, three were partially implemented and three were not implemented.

State University of New York – Oversight of Disability Services (Follow-Up) (2025-F-7)

The State University of New York (SUNY) is the largest comprehensive system of public higher education in the nation, comprising 64 institutions and serving approximately 367,500 students. During the 2023-24 academic year, 39,740 students self-reported a disability at SUNY campuses.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, including access to programs, activities and services. A prior audit, issued in August 2023, found that a sample of campuses provided academic accommodations, outreach and training to students and staff about available services, and received no complaints regarding discrimination based on a student’s disability. However, campuses didn’t always accurately and consistently report data on students with disabilities, and auditors identified 170 areas where accessibility could be improved (such as the height of certain amenities or fixtures like bathroom sinks, mirrors and soap dispensers). 

SUNY made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing all four audit recommendations.

New York City Department of Social Services: New York City Department of Homeless Services – Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. (2023-N-9)

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), within the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) is responsible for providing transitional housing and services in New York City and for providing fiscal oversight of the homeless shelters. In July 2011, DHS contracted with not-for-profit Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. (CAMBA) to provide temporary housing, case management, housing referrals, placement services and on-site medical and mental health services for homeless women at their 200-bed Magnolia House Women’s Shelter from July 2011 to June 2020.

During the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2023, CAMBA claimed $27.9 million in reimbursable expenses for the Magnolia contracts. Auditors found that $4,559,762 or approximately 16.3% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements. These findings, along with other irregularities, point to a significant deficiency in DHS’ monitoring and oversight of its contracts with CAMBA. For instance, DHS approved CAMBA’s security contracts without evidence that they were competitively bid, as required, and DHS also did not complete the required expenditure reviews or ensure that year-end closeouts were completed in a timely manner, a process control that would improve the quality of DHS’ reviews and facilitate recovery of overpayments.

New York City Department of Social Services: Oversight of Contract Expenditures of Bowery Residents’ Committee (Follow-Up) (2024-F-38)

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), an administrative unit of the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS), is responsible for providing transitional housing and services for eligible homeless families and individuals in New York City and for providing fiscal oversight of the homeless shelters. In February 2011, DHS contracted with the Bowery Residents’ Committee (BRC), a city-based not-for-profit organization, to provide emergency shelter and ancillary services for mentally ill and chemically addicted homeless adults at its 200-bed Jack Ryan Residence from September 2010 to June 2021.

During the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2019, BRC claimed $23.6 million in reimbursable expenses for the contract. A prior audit, issued in December 2021, identified, for the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2019, that $1,428,199, or 6.05% of all reported costs, did not comply with requirements, indicating a significant monitoring deficiency. 

DHS officials made some progress in addressing the 11 recommendations from the initial audit report, implementing two, partially implementing seven and not implementing two.

Department of Agriculture and Markets – Farmland Protection Program (2023-S-19)

According to the American Farmland Trust, farms generate over $47 billion in annual economic impact and support approximately 160,000 jobs in the state; however, strains and operational stressors, such as the pressure to convert farmland to other uses like solar farms or residential homes—have contributed to the state rapidly losing farmland. The Farmland Protection Program (Program), established in 1996, provides eligible municipalities with grants (administered by the Department of Agriculture and Markets [AGM]) to implement farmland protection activities and promote the economic viability of farms while helping counteract pressures that may drive land out of agricultural production.

Auditors found that AGM divides the state into 10 geographic regions to allocate funding, distributing funds equally among them without considering regional factors such as grant eligibility, land values, farmland availability and Program participation, potentially contributing to delays in awarding grant funds for farmland preservation. Auditors also found that a $2 million cap per application, set by AGM in 2014, has a greater impact on regions with higher land values and greater development pressures, meaning farms in high-value areas may not be able to obtain adequate funding for their farmland conservation in a single application. Further, comparisons of historical AGM information and USDA Census data, as well as surveys of local land trusts, indicated a lack of awareness of the program and its requirements.

###

Commercial Risk Advisor Newsletter

The July 2025 Commercial Risk Advisor newsletter, posted on the Internet, reports on five workplace safety trends and five cybersecurity errors and how to avoid them. Download now