NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER DiNAPOLI RELEASES SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

On June 19, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following school district audits on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted in BLUE to access the text of the Comptroller's report

Amani Public Charter School – Purchasing and Claims Approval (Westchester County) Since school officials did not procure goods and services in accordance with the established policy and procedures, there is no assurance that the purchases were made in the most prudent and economical manner without favoritism. Specifically, officials did not use competition for 18 purchases totaling $543,474 out of a sample of 21 totaling $763,413 required by school policy to be competitively purchased. Credit card charges were not supported by documentation, reviewed or approved as required. The director did not approve, and the board treasurer did not review any of the 35 charges tested, totaling $9,126. Also, 28 out of 35 charges (80%) totaling $7,627, were not supported by a receipt, a documented purpose or both. Officials did not use a purchase order for 23 purchases totaling $92,220 out of 24 tested totaling $93,865, as required by school policy. Officials also did not properly segregate procurement responsibilities. Auditors determined that overlapping and conflicting responsibilities enabled two directors to each control all aspects of the procurement process, including initiating a purchase request, approving the purchase, approving the invoice and signing checks for payment.

Sullivan West Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Sullivan 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 regulations. Auditors determined 136 of the 410 (33%) water outlets identified at select areas, which students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, 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 were exempt from sampling and how they would be secured and what remedial actions were planned or enacted.

DeRuyter Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Madison 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 38 of the 180 (21%) water outlets identified at select areas, which students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, 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. While the former head of buildings and grounds did have a remedial action plan that showed which water outlets exceeded the lead action level and the remedial actions taken, it did not detail which water outlets they exempted from sampling and how they would be secured against use. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 38 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 112 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 29 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that eight of these 29 outlets (28%) with actionable lead levels were still in service without a test showing they were now below the lead action level or effective controls to prevent them from being used. District officials did not report any results to the local health department as required, including lead action exceedances, and reported results through the DOH’s reporting system 245 days after the required reporting deadline. Additionally, district officials did not have any documentation to support that they notified staff, parents and/or guardians of the test results in writing, as required. Finally, the officials did not post the test results of their potable water outlet sampling on the district’s website.

Island Trees Union Free School District – Inventorying and Monitoring Capital Assets (Nassau County) District officials did not accurately and completely record and account for all capital assets reviewed (i.e., machinery, vehicles, equipment and computers). Additionally, officials have not conducted a physical inventory to properly monitor and account for assets since 2011. Therefore, officials cannot assure taxpayers that all of the district’s capital assets are safe and accounted for, and the district had significant risk for capital assets to be lost, stolen or misused. Auditors found 112 capital assets with an acquisition cost of $60,871 were not recorded on the district’s inventory list. Of the 7,229 capital assets on the district’s active and disposed inventory list, auditors reviewed 254 and found 195 (77%) were not properly accounted for or monitored. Another 21 assets with an acquisition cost of $16,931 and 48 information technology (IT) assets could not be located. The acquisition costs for the 48 IT assets were not recorded or available.

Truxton Academy Charter School – Tuition Billing and Collections (Cortland County) Although school officials accurately billed and collected basic tuition totaling $2.14 million, officials overbilled school districts of residence $84,689 for state aid attributable to students receiving special education services from 2022-23 through 2023-24. These findings occurred because school officials did not follow State Education Department guidance for calculating state aid, did not always maintain necessary documentation to support calculations of the amounts billed or ensure billings were accurate, and did not establish adequate procedures for tuition billing.

Avoca Central School District – Payroll (Steuben County) District officials generally paid employees’ salaries and wages accurately during the period July 1, 2022 through Oct. 10, 2024. Auditors reviewed 35 employees’ salaries and wage payments totaling $417,720 and determined that officials generally paid employees’ salaries and wages accurately during the period. However, auditors determined that district officials did not adequately segregate duties or establish mitigating controls over payroll processing.

Avoca Central School District – Procurement (Steuben County) District officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with the statutory requirements set forth in state law or with the district’s procurement policies and procedures. District officials also did not develop procedures governing the procurement of goods and services not subject to state competitive bidding laws as required by the district’s procurement policy that was last approved by the board in 2017. In addition, district officials did not aggregate purchases to determine whether certain procurements were subject to the competitive bidding requirements set forth in state law.

NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER DiNAPOLI RELEASES MUNICIPAL AUDITS

On June 19, 2025 New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following municipal audits on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted in BLUE to access the text of the Comptroller's report

Town of Coxsackie – Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Greene County) The supervisor’s failure to maintain complete and accurate records or adequately provide monthly reporting to the board reduced transparency, prevented it from properly monitoring financial operations, and increased the risk that unauthorized or inappropriate transactions could occur and go undetected. The town’s accounting system was not properly set up and financial activity was not recorded using proper accounting procedures. The town’s fund balance accounts had errors totaling $833,153. For example, the general town-wide fund was understated by $337,470 and the highway part-town fund was overstated by $363,081. The supervisor filed an incorrect Annual Financial Report (AFR) and did not file the AFR on time. The board did not audit the supervisor’s records as required by law. The accounting errors and untimely filing may have been detected had the board annually audited the supervisor’s records.

Lewis County Industrial Development Agency (LCIDA) – Staff Services Agreements The board entered into written staff services agreements with Naturally Lewis Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, to provide general administrative and staff support services to LCIDA for the last quarter of 2023 and for 2024. However, the board did not ensure the fees paid to the corporation were accurately calculated and paid according to the agreements, resulting in LCIDA overpaying $316,597 for such services – 172% more than the written agreements required. In addition, LCIDA paid a fee for one project which was not approved by the board. Had the board exercised appropriate oversight, it might have identified and corrected these errors. 

Town of Alden – Town Supervisor (Erie County) The former supervisor did not always follow basic accounting principles by preparing or maintaining complete and accurate accounting records or providing sufficient financial reports to the board. The supervisor did not always adhere to basic internal controls that are designed to help ensure funds are safeguarded and accounted for. Because the board did not receive adequate financial reporting, it was not aware of the town’s financial status and therefore adopted unrealistic budgets. Without adequate accounting controls and accurate and timely financial information, the supervisor and board cannot make informed financial decisions. The former supervisor did not always record collections in a timely manner during 2023, with an average of 40 days between the collection date and the recording date or maintain accurate accounting records or prepare monthly bank reconciliations. As a result, the total cash balance in the 2023 Annual Financial Report was overstated by over $76,000 when compared to the cash balances of the accounting records.

Town of Alden – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Erie County) The clerk did not properly record, deposit, remit or report collections resulting in a greater risk for theft or loss. In addition, the clerk accumulated unremitted funds totaling $138,050 in the tax collection bank accounts. The funds should have been remitted to the town supervisor, a school district or refunded to taxpayers. Most of the unremitted funds, or $84,757, should have been returned to taxpayers who overpaid their taxes. However, only a limited number of taxpayers received their refund since 2021. Retaining the collections prevented the funds from being productively used by town officials and taxpayers. The clerk also did not always date stamp real property tax receipts, including 66% of town and county and 47% of school real property tax receipts, resulting in the potential for missing funds and the misuse of funds increasing significantly. The clerk also did not properly deposit all real property tax collections or all clerk fees in accordance with the law.

Town of Leicester – Financial Management (Livingston County) The board did not effectively manage the town’s fund balance and continued to unrealistically estimate revenues and appropriations in the adopted budgets. The board also did not correct the deficiencies noted in a prior audit released in November 2015, adopt written fund balance or reserve policies or properly establish reserves. In addition, the board did not ensure it received up-to-date, accurate financial reports in a timely manner, which hindered its adoption of realistic budgets and multiyear financial or capital plans. Officials maintained significant unrestricted fund balance in the town-wide (TW) and town-outside-village (TOV) funds that, as of Jan. 1, 2024, were sufficient to fund the entire 2024 budgeted appropriations. The board continued to unrealistically estimate revenues and appropriations in the 2025 budget, which will likely result in operating surpluses that will further increase the significant fund balances in the general and highway TW and TOV funds.

Town of Windsor – Financial Management (Broome County) The board did not effectively manage the town’s fund balance or develop a written multiyear financial plan. In addition, the board’s preliminary budgets also did not include fund balance estimates with a breakdown by fund to assist officials in preparing and approving the final budget and providing transparency to the taxpayers and residents. Due to the board’s budgeting practices, officials generated net operating surpluses totaling nearly $2.7 million instead of planned operating deficits totaling $482,700 in the general fund town-wide (TW), general fund town-outside-village (TOV) and highway fund TOV during the four-year audit period. As a result, more taxes may have been levied than needed. Officials also increased unrestricted fund balance from Dec. 31, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2023 by 96%, 93% and 93% in the general fund TW, general fund TOV and highway fund TOV, respectively. Officials underestimated sales tax revenues by approximately $1.3 million in the highway fund TOV and overestimated employer retirement contributions by approximately $298,100 in the main operating funds.

Henrietta Fire District – Distribution of Foreign Fire Insurance (FFI) Tax Proceeds (Monroe County) District officials did not properly distribute the 2024 FFI tax proceeds because the treasurer miscalculated the distribution. The treasurer used the 2023 pro-rata allocation percentage to distribute a portion of the 2024 FFI tax proceeds instead of using the 2024 pro-rata allocation percentage. Although the chief and a board member reviewed the treasurer’s distribution calculations, prior to the treasurer making the distributions, the miscalculation was not identified by either individual. As a result, two fire companies received more money than their pro-rata share ($1,322 and $61, respectively), and the paid firefighting personnel and remaining fire company received less than their pro-rata share ($1,134 and $249, respectively).

Monroe No. 1 Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Credit Cards BOCES officials did not ensure that all credit card charges were properly approved and supported. Therefore, it could not be determined whether all charges were for appropriate BOCES purposes. Additionally, officials did not ensure that credit card charges were reconciled to receipts in a timely manner and audited, as required, prior to payment. Auditors reviewed 532 credit card charges totaling $138,238 and determined that 461 charges totaling $110,539 had one or more exceptions. Auditors found 424 charges totaling $99,308 were paid prior to audit and approval by the claims auditor, 166 charges totaling $35,927 did not have adequate support including a specific BOCES purpose and 97 charges totaling $12,938 required pre-approval but were not properly approved before the purchase.

Town of Rutland – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Jefferson County) The clerk did not always record, deposit, remit and report all collections accurately and in a timely manner. Due to deficiencies in the records, it is unclear whether eight recorded cash and check collections totaling $161 were deposited in the bank and whether cash collections totaling $8,224 were deposited in a timely manner. In addition, collections totaling $5,806 were deposited but not recorded in the records and seven monthly reports and remittances to the supervisor and other agencies were submitted 16 to 178 days late. The clerk also did not make 11 deposits of real property taxes totaling $191,581 in a timely manner and remit taxes to the supervisor and county treasurer within the timeframes specified by law. The clerk also did not complete monthly bank reconciliations and accountability analyses to help identify and correct errors. As a result, the clerk bank account had a cash shortage of $647 as of Dec. 1, 2023, and the tax bank account had an unidentified cash balance of $4,375 as of Oct. 31, 2024. Additionally, the board did not perform an annual audit of the clerk’s records, as required, which could have assisted officials in detecting and addressing the deficiencies sooner.

Town of Rutland – Water and Sewer Charges (Jefferson County) The clerk did not properly bill water and sewer charges. Auditors identified a total of $8,823 in billing errors that resulted in $4,634 in overcharges to customer accounts and $4,189 in undercharges. Of 81 customer account billing adjustments tested for 2022 and 2023, 80 adjustments totaling $57,083 were not reviewed or approved by the board and 41 of these adjustments totaling $5,808 had no documented reason or support for the adjustments. In addition, the board did not formally authorize all billing rates charged by the town and did not develop and adopt written policies and procedures to provide guidance on water and sewer billings and account adjustments. Lastly, no one independent of the billing process reviewed quarterly billing reports to help ensure meter readings, estimated readings and amounts billed were accurate.

Town of Bethlehem – Information Technology (Albany County) The town board and officials did not develop and adopt an Information Technology (IT) contingency plan or breach notification policy, periodically test data backups or provide employees with security awareness training. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials. As a result, the town’s IT systems and its personal, private and sensitive information may be accessible to unauthorized use, access and loss. Officials also have minimal assurance that in the event of a disruption or disaster that employees and other responsible parties would be able to react quickly and effectively to help resume, restore or repair critical IT systems or data in a timely manner. Officials also did not monitor employee internet use. Although the town’s computer and internet use policy in the employee manual prohibits employees from using town-owned computers for personal use, officials and employees were not in compliance with the policy.

Unclaimed funds of selected government and related entities currently being held by the New York State Comptroller

New York State’s Abandoned Property Law requires certain entities to transfer abandoned money or securities to the New York State Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds. Entities required to report and remit unclaimed funds include banks, insurance companies, corporations and government agencies. 

These unclaimed funds are transferred to the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds from inactive bank accounts, uncollected insurance policies or refunds, amounts due for undelivered goods or services, abandoned stocks, uncashed checks and more. The Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds serves as the custodian of such property until it is claimed by the rightful owner.

Go to the Comptroller's Internet site to search for "unclaimed funds" belonging to an entity, public or private, or to an individual or to a family, being held by the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds and instructions for filing an application to retrieve such property from the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds.

Click HERE to access the State Comptroller's "unclaimed funds" web site to initiate a search.

Second Circuit holds an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 is not appropriate where it is based on pre-litigation conduct

A temporary contract employee [Plaintiff] at a CUNY institution, was notified that a student at another CCNY institution had accused him of sexual harassment. A CCNY Title IX Coordinator investigated the student's claim and substantiated several of the allegations. Plaintiff was advised that the Coordinator's findings had been accepted and that he "was terminated effective immediately, thirteen business days before his contract was to expire.

Plaintiff initiated an arbitration proceeding seeking a fact-finding or "name clearing" hearing as to whether Plaintiff had violated CUNY’s sexual harassment policy.  On the eve of the arbitration CCNY notified Plaintiff that his termination was rescinded and that he would be paid "for the remaining thirteen business days of his term of employment". In addition, Plaintiff was advised that CUNY would remove any reference to the incident from Plaintiff's personnel file.

Based on these actions, CUNY moved to dismiss the arbitration as moot. CCNY's motion was granted by the arbitrator, who concluded that CUNY’s actions resolved Plaintiff’s grievance and that he was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing because he had no constitutionally protected property interest in his temporary position.

Plaintiff then initiated the instant 42 U.S.C. §1983 action in a federal district court naming CUNY and certain named individuals [herein after CCNY] as defendants, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff sought more than $45 million in compensatory and punitive damages, a name-clearing hearing, and vacatur of the arbitration award. 

A federal district court granted CCNY's motion for summary on all but one of Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff's “stigma-plus”* claim against CUNY.  

At trial Plaintiff sought over $4 million in damages. A jury determined that Plaintiff had been unlawfully denied a name-clearing hearing but awarded him only $1 in nominal damages. The district court entered a final judgment in that amount, $1.00", whereupon Plaintiff sought attorney’s fees totaling nearly $120,000. 

The district court awarded Plaintiff $75,000 in fees, reasoning that Plaintiff was “entitled to a significant part of his attorney’s fees,” in part due to CUNY’s “questionable behavior” in “moot[ing] [Plaintiff's] right to have the legitimacy of his termination decided in his arbitration proceeding,” which forced him to engage in “protracted and costly litigation.” 

CCNY appealed and the Circuit Court of Court vacated the award because "the district court had failed to adequately explain its decision based on the considerations identified in the governing fee-award cases, particularly view of other nominal damages cases cited by the Circuit Court in its decision and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions "to reconsider its decision in light of those cases".

On remand, the district court acknowledged that certain of the cases cited by the Circuit Court "strictly limit the circumstances in which fees may be awarded in nominal damages cases and that this case did not meet any of the recognized bases for awarding such fees," but "reasoned that a fee award was warranted because CUNY acted in 'bad faith' in mooting the arbitration rather than allowing Plaintiff to pursue a name-clearing hearing." CCNY appealed the district court's ruling.

The Circuit Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the matter to it with instructions to deny Plaintiff's application for attorney’s fees, explaining that it concluded that the district court abused its discretion in relying on CUNY’s alleged bad faith in its conduct giving rise to the lawsuit as a basis for awarding fees. 

The Circuit Court's decision noted the decisions it earlier cited did not "identify a party’s bad faith in the underlying conduct which was the subject of the litigation as justifying an award of fees under §1988 to a prevailing plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages" nor was it aware of any Second Circuit decision holding an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under §1988 based on pre-litigation conduct although bad faith can be a basis for an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for litigation-related conduct, citing Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 81 F.4th 124.

In the words of the Circuit Court: "The mere fact that CUNY sought to moot the arbitration proceedings is insufficient to support the [district] court’s finding on this point. What the [district] court characterized as a 'mootness gambit' .... could just as well have been a tactical decision by CUNY to resolve its dispute with [Plaintiff] rather than engage in a potentially protracted arbitration. The jury obviously concluded that CUNY thereby deprived [Plaintiff] of a name clearing hearing to which he was entitled, but [the Circuit Court said it is] not aware of any basis for concluding that CUNY proceeded with deliberate intent to violate [Plaintiff's] constitutional rights."

* Citing DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292, 302 (2d Cir. 2003), the Circuit Court of Appeals noted "A 'stigma-plus' claim involves an alleged injury to one’s reputation (the stigma) coupled with the deprivation of some ‘tangible interest’ or property right (the plus), without adequate process”.

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet. 

Failing to comply with the employer's vaccine mandate constitutes a failure to satisfy a condition of employment not subject to a pretermination disciplinary procedure

The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued an order [The Vaccine Mandate] requiring employees of the New York City Department of Education [DOE] to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide proof of such vaccination. 

The United Federation of Teachers [UFT], the employer organization representing a majority of teachers in New York City public schools, filed a demand for arbitration challenging  the implementation of the Vaccine Mandate. The arbitrator issued an award [Impact Award] establishing a process for the implementation of the Vaccine Mandate. The Impact Award provided, among other things, that "[any] unvaccinated employee who has not requested an exemption ..., or who has requested an exemption which has been denied, may be placed by the DOE on leave without pay." 

The Impact Award further provided that "[employees] who become vaccinated while on such leave without pay and provide appropriate documentation ... prior to November 30, 2021, shall have a right of return to the same school," and "beginning December 1, 2021], the DOE shall seek to unilaterally separate such employees who remained on leave without pay".

A tenured teacher [Petitioner] employed by DOE was placed on leave without pay after failing to submit proof of vaccination by the deadline. DOE subsequently terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner then commenced the instant "hybrid proceeding" pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of the Impact Award, alleging that, among other things, it was issued in violation of Civil Service Law §209(3)(f), and asked Supreme Court to annul DOE's determination to terminate her employment as being arbitrary and capricious. 

Supreme Court, however, granted DOE's cross-motion and dismissed Petitioner's "proceeding/action". Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's ruling to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said with respect to the Petitioner's seeing review of the Impact Award, it should have have been denominated a CPLR Article 75 proceeding and, citing Matter of Baksh v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 225 AD3d 689 and other decision, noted that "[Appellate] courts are empowered to convert a civil proceeding into one which is proper in form under CPLR 103(c), making whatever order is necessary" and  then converted its review of the Impact Award into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75. 

The Court then opined that as Petitioner was not a party to the arbitration between the DOE and the UFT, she did not have standing to seek judicial review of the Impact Award. The Appellate Division also observed that Petitioner's cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract arising from a collective bargaining agreement between the DOE and the UFT was properly dismissed by the Supreme Court as "A union member generally has no individual rights under a collective bargaining agreement which he or she can enforce against an employer".

Turning to Petitioner's argument that the Impact Award violated the disciplinary hearing procedures set out in Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a, the Appellate Division opined that such an argument was "without merit" as Petitioner "was not entitled to the hearing procedures outlined in Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a before being terminated for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate, because the mandate is a condition of employment".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly granted the DOE's cross-motion and dismissed the Petitioner's "proceeding/action".

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