Correction officer found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging unprofessional and threatening misconduct terminated from service

A County Department of Probation probation officer [Petitioner] was served three disciplinary charges alleging behavior that was "unbecoming an employee and/or constituted violations of the employer's workplace violence policy and anti-harassment policy". 

Following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer issued a report in which he found Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and recommended Petitioner's dismissal from service. The Director of the County Department of Probation [Director] adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner's employment.

Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Director's determination, which action was then transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804[g]. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision, observing that it was  supported by substantial evidence". 

The disciplinary charges against Petitioner essentially relate to three incidents, and extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing addressing each of them. 

The first incident involved a heated interview between Petitioner and one of the probationers he was supervising. Numerous witnesses testified that Petitioner commenced "yelling" at the probationer, accusing him of lying, barring him from leaving despite having no basis for doing so and eventually demanding to know whether he wanted "to take [it] outside". The proof submitted reflected that the interview became so contentious that others intervened to de-escalate the situation and separate the two individuals. The probationer was subsequently transferred to the caseload of another probation officer.

The second incident involved another probation officer who alleged Petitioner's behavior to be threatening and she filed a formal complaint against Petitioner with the agency's human resources office.

The testimony following a third incident, which involved Petitioner and a different probation officer, reported that the probation officer was "uncomfortable around [Petitioner] due to his prior behavior and decided to wait in her vehicle until he went inside'. The probation officer testified that when she finally got out of her car, "Petitioner also got out of his vehicle and waited for her by the stairs to the employee entrance" and another probation officer "was worried enough about what might happen next that she began recording audio on her phone, and that recording was entered into evidence at the hearing". 

The probation officer testified that she found the "incident so disturbing that she immediately reported it to her supervisor" and, like the probation officer who had been involved in the earlier incident, filed a formal complaint about it.

The Appellate Division opined that "Without belaboring the point further, this proof of [Petitioner's] unprofessional and threatening conduct" during these several incidents reflected that Petitioner "had engaged in conduct unbecoming a County employee in numerous respects".

Although Petitioner presented testimony that challenged aspects of the other witnesses' accounts and generally attempted to put his behavior in a more favorable light, the Hearing Officer indicated that he found Petitioner to be "wholly incredible in his testimony" and "credited the proof that [Petitioner] had engaged in extensive misconduct. 

The Appellate Division's decision concluded by noting Petitioner's "demonstrated pattern of unprofessional and aggressive behavior, for which he failed to accept any responsibility or indicate a willingness to modify in the future", and, citing Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 13 AD3d 851, and other Appellate Division decisions, held that the penalty of termination "was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness.".

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

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending November 14, 2025

Data Solutions for Faster Aid Delivery Help eligible individuals gain quick, reliable access to vital services like food and healthcare. Learn More 

Empower Individuals and Families to Achieve Stability and Self-Sufficiency Use Data-Driven Insights to Provide Faster and Easier Access to Vital Social Services. Learn More

ROI You Can Prove: Making the Case for Modern Identity Systems Modern identity systems are critical to secure, digital-first government—but funding them takes a clear business case. This guide walks through a realistic five-year cost-benefit analysis for digital identity systems in the public sector, showing how agencies can forecast ROI, reduce fraud, and accelerate digital transformation. DOWNLOAD

Building Whole-of-State Cybersecurity: A Maturity Model for Shared Resilience This new paper outlines how states can evolve from foundational security practices to advanced, optimized operations — leveraging automation, AI, and shared intelligence to reduce risk and improve response times. DOWNLOAD 

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

See How Coordination Brings Connectivity Back After Natural Disasters  Restoring connectivity is essential to recovery. A new docufilm follows broadband crews working alongside utilities and government partners to bring communications back. Watch the Film

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

Q&A: Beyond Silos: Optimizing Whole-of-State Defense This Q&A explores how a whole-of-state approach can unify security efforts across departments, while optimizing limited resources.  DOWNLOAD

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

On August 13, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Serven Volunteer Fire Company – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not ensure financial activities were properly recorded and reported and resources were adequately safeguarded, which increased the risk that errors or irregularities could occur and remain undetected and uncorrected. The board did not ensure that the bylaws were adequate or enforce their limited financial provisions, establish supplemental financial policies or procedures, conduct a thorough audit of bills or conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s books and records. The treasurer did not solely receive and deposit all money as required and allowed a member to handle hall rental revenue.

Border City Fire District – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, the former district fire department chief, who was also a director of the Border City Hose Company, entered into an unauthorized contract with a private corporation and kept an unauthorized bank account into which he inappropriately deposited and withdrew district money. The board did not ensure all goods and services were procured in compliance with state law, district policies or in the best interest of taxpayers. The board did not oversee the chief or ensure the treasurer received, accounted for and dispersed all district money.

Border City Hose Company – Financial Oversight (Seneca County)  Company officers did not provide oversight of company financial operations by performing even the limited oversight responsibilities outlined in the company’s bylaws. Certain officers hindered the treasurer’s ability to perform his fiscal responsibilities by designating themselves as recipients and custodians of most company money. As a result, company money was not always properly accounted for, and a director, who was also the Border City Fire District Fire Department chief, inappropriately used company funds for his personal benefit.

Henderson Fire District – Financial Activities (Jefferson County) The board did not adequately monitor financial activities or ensure the treasurer maintained appropriate records and reports. Auditors determined the treasurer did not prepare accurate and timely bank reconciliations for the general fund checking account and did not reconcile the three interest-bearing savings and money market accounts. The treasurer did not provide the board with a detailed listing of all funds received and disbursed during the month or balance sheet reports. The treasurer also did not file annual financial reports with the State Comptroller’s Office for 2019 through 2024.

Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District – Claims Auditing (Steuben County) The claims auditor did not properly audit all claims prior to payment. Of the 2,943 claims totaling $23.7 million, auditors reviewed 202 claims totaling $1.4 million and determined that 105 claims totaling approximately $804,000 should not have been approved by the claims auditor for payment. While auditors were able to determine that each of the 202 claims was for a proper district purpose, the board had no assurance that claims approved by the claims auditor complied with its written policies and that each purchase was for a proper district purpose.

###

Attorney sanctioned after including AI generated hallucinations in material submitted to the court

New York State Supreme Court Justice Joel M. Cohen introduced his decision in the instant matter as follows: 

"This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation* and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion. In other words, counsel relied upon unvetted AI — in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues — to defend his use of unvetted AI."

Justice Cohen opined that the use of AI is not the problem per se, "the problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate". In the words of the Court, "When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI-generated or not—they prejudice their clients and do a disservice to the Court and the profession. In sum, counsel's duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program".**

Justice Cohen then:

"ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 is GRANTED, such that Defendants and their counsel are jointly and severally liable to compensate Plaintiff for her reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with this motion, together with fees and costs attributable to addressing Defendants' unvetted AI citations and quotations in the summary judgment motion;

"ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit an application with supporting documentation for the fees awarded above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order; Defendants and their counsel may submit opposition thereto within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff's application. Plaintiff shall notify the Court via letter filing on NYSCEF and by email when the application is complete and whether it is opposed or unopposed; and

"ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel promptly submit a copy of this decision and order to the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, First Department and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, copying defense counsel and this Court on its transmittal letters."

* Such "creativity" by an Artificial Intelligence computer program is often referred to as an "AI generated hallucination".

Click HERE to access Justice Cohen's ruling posted on the Internet.

Unemployment Insurance claimant terminated for failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination challenged her disqualified from receiving such benefits

Claimant for Unemployment Insurance Benefits appealed a New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] ruling holding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because Claimant voluntarily separated from employment without good cause.

Claimant was notified by her employer that she and similar situated employees in patient-facing roles were required to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine by a specified date in order to continue their employment. Claimant submitted a written religious exemption request seeking to be exempt from the vaccination requirement, which request the employer denied.

Claimant's employment was ultimately terminated for her failure to obtain the COVID-19 vaccination and she applied for unemployment insurance benefits. 

The New York State Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding, among other things, that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the initial determination, and that decision was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and Claimant appealed. 

The Board then reopened its decision pursuant to Labor Law §534 and remanded the matter for a hearing to address, among other things, Claimant's contention that her sincerely held religious beliefs prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. The Board confirmed its earlier decision and Claimant appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision noting that "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, notwithstanding evidence in the record that might support a contrary in addition the the Court observed "... whether a claimant's conduct is motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs or is based upon secular convictions is a question for the Board".

Claimant had indicated, among other things, that she declined to be vaccinated because of her faith, that she has serious medical issues, that receiving the vaccine would not have been in her health's best interests and that she had safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. 

Under the circumstances, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessments and the inferences to be drawn from Claimant's testimony and submissions, which varied at points regarding her reason for not getting vaccinated, the Appellate Division concluded that "substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant voluntarily refused to comply with the vaccine mandate for personal and secular reasons, including her safety concerns, and not based upon sincerely held religious beliefs and, thus, she left her employment without good cause."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.