Merriam-Webster defines jobbery as "the improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain".

Click HERE to access New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli's press release concerning a "jobbery" dated October 28, 2025.

Government and school audits issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

On October 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

Port Ewen Fire District – Financial Management (Ulster County) The board and officials did not properly manage the district’s financial operations, including ensuring that the district treasurer maintained adequate accounting records. In addition, the board did not annually review the district’s investment policy and seek legal investment options that align with the district’s investment needs and benefit taxpayers and which may have resulted in greater investment earnings. For example, the district’s investment earnings totaled $968, but had officials solicited interest rate quotes and considered other investment options, they may have realized investment earnings ranging between approximately $42,000 and $51,000.

Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Audit Follow-Up (Schenectady County) A previous audit, Schonowe Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Board Oversight (2021M-185), determined that the company’s board did not develop financial procedures for collections and disbursements, periodically monitor the budget or ensure the constitution (bylaws) were followed.  The audit included eight recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the company’s financial operations. Although the board and company officials were aware of the prior audit, were familiar with the recommendations and conveyed in the company’s corrective action plan what actions they would take to implement the audit’s recommendations, the board and company officials did not implement any of the audit’s recommendations.

Montrose Fire District – Claims Auditing (Westchester County) Auditors reviewed 166 claims totaling $712,696 and determined that the board did not properly audit 78 claims totaling $47,836. For example, the board approved 21 claims totaling $23,789 without documentation indicating that the services outlined in the rental agreement were rendered and 13 claims that included sales tax totaling $228. District officials told auditors they were aware that sales taxes were paid on certain purchases and have taken measures to ensure sales taxes are not paid going forward. In addition, the board approved 42 out of 60 credit card claims totaling $5,117 without adequate supporting documentation that purchases were for legitimate district purposes. These claims included purchases totaling $484 made through an online payment system and at a local coffee chain. Although officials claimed that the purchases were fraudulent, they did not provide documentation to support that fraud claims were filed with the bank to dispute the charges. By not properly auditing claims, the board’s ability to effectively monitor district financial operations is diminished, and errors and irregularities may continue to occur and remain undetected and uncorrected.

Franklin Square Union Free School District – Website Transparency (Nassau County) District officials did not ensure the district’s website provided the public with transparent and comprehensive financial and administrative information. As a result, the community and other interested parties could not readily access and review district information to make informed decisions.

North Salem Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Westchester County) A previous audit – North Salem Central School District Network User Accounts (2022M-140) – determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit included three recommendations to help officials monitor and improve the district’s monitoring of network user accounts. Of the three audit recommendations, district officials, the IT director and IT staff fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented two recommendations. Recommendations related to sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to district officials.

The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing is seeking qualified applicants for appointment Supervising Law Clerk and for Contract Dispute Resolution Board Panelists

The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing [OATH] Trials Division is seeking a Supervising Law Clerk to head OATH's legal research unit and Supervise OATH's Law Clerks. 

The Supervising Law Clerk position requires admission to the New York State Bar. Experience handling highly complex and significant legal work is a plus. Incumbents must remain members of the New York State Bar in good standing for the duration of this employment. This position promotes access to justice in New York City. For more details visit https://cityjobs.nyc.gov/ and search for Job ID 720154 (Supervising Law Clerk)

Other positions currently available with OATH include Contract Dispute Resolution Board Panelists. 

OATH is accepting applications from qualified persons who would like to serve on Contract Dispute Resolution Board [CDRB] panels. CDRB panels hear the final appeal in a three-step dispute resolution process contained in City contracts for construction, goods and services. 

Each CDRB panel consists of an OATH Administrative Law Judge, as chair, a representative of the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, and a third member selected from a pre-qualified roster of individuals, established and administered by OATH, who has appropriate expertise and is unaffiliated and not employed by the City.

Those interested in being added to the roster of pre-qualified individuals are encouraged to apply. Applicants should have a background and experience in government contracting, construction, engineering or related law. 

The application form, as well as more information on the panelist role, can be found by clicking here. Completed applications should be sent via e-mail to the OATH Trials Division Law Clerks, LawClerks@oath.nyc.gov.

Continuing Legal Education program offered by New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

The Trials Division of New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] will offer a Continuing Education program focusing on Rules and Ethical issued in administrative proceeding before OATH.

The program will be presented by Administrative Law Judges Kevin Casey, Julia Davis, Faye Lewis, and Christine Stecura.

The program’s first half will provide an overview of the rules and best practices for appearing at OATH’s Trials Division. The program’s second half will review relevant sections of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and related ethics opinions and their impact on practitioners who appear before OATH’s Trials Division.

This free program will give participants 1.0 CLE credit in Areas of Professional Practice and 1.0 CLE credit in Ethics and Professionalism (transitional/non-transitional).

Pre-registration is required. Click here to register.

 

A Petitioner seeking to vacate an arbitration award must meet a high burden in order to have a court grant a motion to vacate the award

Supreme Court granted Petitioner law firm's motion to confirm an arbitration award granting it $297,150.91 in unpaid legal fees, and denied the Respondents' motion to vacate the arbitration award. 

Citing CPLR 7511[b][1] and Matter of D.P.I. Imports, Inc v Q4 Designs, LLC, 232 AD3d 512, leave to appeal denied, 43 NY3d 903, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that the Respondents failed to meet the "high burden" placed on it in order to have a court grant its motion to vacate the arbitration award at issue.

The decision notes that the record "does not show that the arbitrator engaged in fraud, corruption or misconduct by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence, or that he manifestly disregarded the law in finding that [Respondents] breached the retainer agreement and were otherwise liable for the unpaid legal fees based on the equitable theories of recovery."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "A court will not set aside an arbitrator's award for errors of law or fact unless the award is so irrational as to require vacatur, which is not the case here."

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