New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the following State Government Accountability audits

Audits of the New York State Departments and Agencies listed below were posted on the Internet by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on April 2, 2026.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access these audits.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Managed Care Payments to Unenrolled Providers (Follow-Up) (2025-F-21)

The 21st Century Cures Act mandated that managed care in-network providers, with certain exceptions, enroll as participating providers in the state Medicaid program by January 1, 2018. Through the screening and provider enrollment process, the Department of Health (DOH) gains some assurance of providers’ validity to provide Medicaid services. A prior audit, issued in June 2024, found that DOH did not monitor encounter claims to identify inappropriate managed care payments to providers who were not enrolled in Medicaid and found weaknesses in controls that led to over $1.5 billion in improper and questionable payments. DOH officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s 10 audit recommendations, two were implemented, five were partially implemented, and three were not implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Recovering Managed Care Payments for Inpatient Services on Behalf of Recipients With Third-Party Health Insurance (Follow-Up) (2025-F-10)

The Department of Health (DOH) uses post-payment reviews to identify when a third-party health insurance (TPHI) carrier may be responsible for payments for services originally paid by Medicaid. The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) contracted with Health Management Systems, Inc. (a Gainwell Technologies company [Gainwell]), to perform these reviews and to pursue recoveries from TPHI carriers or providers. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, determined that DOH and OMIG lacked adequate oversight of the third-party liability recovery process. Gainwell had not billed TPHI carriers for the recovery of about $52.2 million in inpatient encounter claims that Medicaid managed care organizations paid as the primary insurance for recipients who, according to eMedNY (DOH’s Medicaid claims processing and payment system), had TPHI inpatient coverage. DOH and OMIG officials made minimal progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s eight audit recommendations, two were implemented, two were partially implemented, and four were not implemented.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Medicaid Payments for Early Refills of Prescription Drugs and Supplies (2024-S-16)

Through NYRx, New York State Medicaid’s Pharmacy program, the Department of Health (DOH) pays pharmacies directly for medically necessary prescription drugs and supplies provided to Medicaid members. Early refills are refills on prescriptions before the previous supply has been fully used. For the period from April 2023 through October 2024, auditors identified over 3.6 million claims totaling approximately $585.2 million for drugs and supplies refilled too early. While many claims were filled just a few days earlier than allowed by policy, nearly 43% of the findings had 20 or more excess supply days. Auditors identified multiple weaknesses in DOH’s edit logic that allowed these claims to be paid despite meeting DOH’s criteria for denial.

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Claims Processing Activity October 1, 2024 Through March 31, 2025 (2024-S-26)

During the 6-month period ended March 31, 2025, the Department of Health’s (DOH) claims processing system, eMedNY, processed over 328 million Medicaid claims, resulting in payments to providers of over $46 billion. Auditors identified over $13.8 million in improper Medicaid payments. As a result of the audit, more than $3.4 million of the improper payments was recovered. The audit also identified 14 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. In response to these findings, DOH removed 13 providers from the Medicaid program and was reviewing the ownership status of the remaining provider.

Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-18)

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in December 2023, found the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) did not adequately oversee the physical and financial conditions at the sampled developments. Management at those developments misspent funds and failed to provide a safe and clean living environment for the residents. Auditors identified issues with 164 transactions totaling $327,363 and, at two of five sampled developments, observed hazardous conditions such as water-damaged ceilings and rusty, loose railings. DHCR officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing one audit recommendation, partially implementing four, and not implementing two.

Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City – Sunnyside Manor: Unauthorized Bank Account (Follow-Up) (2024-F-24)

The Mitchell-Lama Housing program was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. A prior audit, issued in July 2024, found that Sunnyside Manor’s Board held a checking account separate from the development’s operating account, with a balance of $14,888 as of March 31, 2022. Bank statements for the Board-held account showed numerous questionable debit card transactions. This Board-held account was not included on Sunnyside Manor’s general ledger and audited financial statements and appears to have received limited oversight. Division of Housing and Community Renewal officials have made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented.

###

Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order annulling employer's decision to discontinue the services of a probationary employee rejected

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to obtain a court order annulling the New York City Department of Education's [DOE] decision to discontinue Plaintiff's probationary employment, rejecting Plaintiff's argument that her termination was made in retaliation for her filing a complaint with Office of Equal Opportunity. Plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Courts decision.

The Appellate Division explained that Petitioner's challenge of the lower court's decision to discontinue her probationary employment was properly denied as Plaintiff failed to show that her termination before the completion of her maximum period of probation:

a. Was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose; or

b. Was in violation of law; or

c. Was made in bad faith.

The Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's argument that her termination was in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity was speculative, given the evidence of her misconduct, insubordination, and performance issues which had been discussed with her at meetings with administrative officials and her union representative which predated her filing of her Human Rights Law complaint. The Court held that that the record supports the conclusion that DOE's decision to terminate Plaintiff's probationary employment was due to Plaintiff's professional misconduct and insubordination. 

Addressing Plaintiff's "motion to renew" presented to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court "providently denied the motion to renew" because Plaintiff did not present any new evidence that could not have been presented in [the Plaintiff's] petition or that would have rendered a different result".

The Appellate Division noted that "No appeal lies from that part of the Supreme Court's order which denied [Plaintiff's] motion to reargue."

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

Circumstantial evidence considered by the hearing officer in a Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary action

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D.Turilli recommended termination of employment for a correction officer [Respondent] he found had engaged in undue familiarity by facilitating the transfer of contraband between detainees. 

Citing OATH Index No. 1593/20 (Sept. 28, 2020), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 16, 2020), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2020-0810, in which the then presiding ALJ held that “A finding based entirely on circumstantial evidence may be established in a Civil Service disciplinary proceeding so long as the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that ‘the inference drawn is the only one that is fair and reasonable'”, in the instant disciplinary action Judge Turilli noted that there was circumstantial evidence of:

a. Respondent’s surreptitious retrieval and delivery of the items captured on video;

b. Respondent's concealment of his actions on official logbooks; and

c. An audio recording of conversations between the detainees involved.

The ALJ concluded that Respondent knew that the box and the envelope had come from a detainee in the restricted housing area and that Respondent knowingly transported the contraband to another housing area. In addition, Judge Turilli said that Respondent’s denial of knowledge was uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible. 

Judge Turilli recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding that neither Respondent’s disciplinary history nor the lack of evidence regarding the contents of the box and envelope warranted a lesser penalty. 

Click HERE to access Judge Turilli's decision posted on the Internet.

Discrete acts of a school board over a period of time alleged to constitute misconduct fail to establish a continuing wrong

Observing that the "discrete acts of misconduct" described by Petitioner in her petition and which allegedly took place between January 2025 and September 2025, each of these acts having occurred more than 30 days prior to service of the Plaintiff's petition, the Commissioner of Education found that such acts, in the aggregate, did not constitute a continuing wrong.

The Commissioner explained that:

1. With respect to the challenged contracts, the Commissioner said it has been consistently held that the 30-day time limitation set for filing such appeals “commences upon the award[ing] of [a] contract”; and 

2.  It has been consistently held that events "like school elections and board meetings" also trigger unique and independent 30-day time limitations.

Accordingly, the Commissioner found that Petitioner’s claims were untimely and must be dismissed, indicating that "[in] light of this determination, [she] need not address the parties’ remaining contentions".

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

The United States Postal Service has changed its postmark dating system which may affect time sensitive mailings

The United States Postal Service [USPS] modified its postmark system used to indicate when it "took possession" of the mail entrusted to it for delivery to the addressee effective December 24, 2025. 

Postmarking at a local post offices is being discontinued in certain areas and a USPS machine-applied postmark system is being used to at USPS processing centers to indicate the date USPS took possession of mail for delivery to the addressee. As a result, the postmarks applied at a processing facility may be later than the date the mail piece was actually first received by the USPS at a local post office. 

This discrepancy is expected to become more common due to the implementation of the USPS' "Regional Transportation Optimization" [RTO] initiative. The adoption of such a  centralized service for affixing postmarks reporting the date when USPS "accepted" the mail piece may become of concern where the mail being sent to an addressee is subject to a statute of limitations or other time sensitive limitations for posting to the addressee in order to qualify as a valid timely posting. 

To assure a postmark is applied on the same day a document is accepted by the USPS for processing, individuals may be required to use local USPS retail services that will require the USPS postal patron to present the mail piece at a USPS retail counter and request the postal clerk to place a local postmark "manually" on the item being mailed. As the postmark would be applied at the time of acceptance of the piece of mail by the postal clerk, the date of the postmark is evidence of the item being in the possession of the USPS for delivery of the item having been timely mailed.

In the alternative, USPS had indicated that:

a. When a customer pays for postage at a retail counter, the postage stamp would cancelled by postal clerk and indicate the date it was accepted by the UPSP or a PVI label would be used by the postal clerk to indicate that the mailed item was accepted by the USPS for delivery; or

b. If the postal patron uses Registered or Certified Mail, the receipt the patron receives for using such service will provide the date the item was accepted by USPS for mailing,

The date the item was posted is critical should it become necessary to demonstrated that certain mail such a tax return, a tax payment, a mail ballot or other "time sensitive" mailings was timely made should it become a legal issue.

As to New York case law addressing this type of situation, in McLaughlin v Saga Corporation, 242 AD2d 393, a case involving an appeal seeking workers' compensation benefits filed with the New York State  Workers' Compensation Appeals Board [WCB], the Appellate Division initially took the position that an appeal is untimely if it is found to have been physically received by the appellate body after the statute of limitations had passed. 

Initially the Appellate Division held that although the appeal was mailed within the 30-day period allowed for filing the application seeking Workers' Compensation benefits if the WCB physically receive the item at issue after the statute of limitations had passed it  was untimely. 

In Saga when claimant sought permission to appeal the Appellate Division's decision, the Court elected to reconsider its ruling. It then reversed its initial ruling, holding that it is the date the USPS accepted the mail for processing, rather than the date of receipt by the addressee, that controls in determining the timeliness of an administrative appeal.

In the words of the Court: 

"Because [the date the appeal was due] fell upon a Saturday, however, the time limit was automatically extended to Monday, February 7, 1994 (see General Construction Law §25-a), the date upon which claimant's application for Board review was, in fact, mailed.   This was sufficient to satisfy the time limitation of Workers' Compensation Law §23 despite the fact that the application for Board review was not actually filed with the Board until February 15, 1994."

The Appellate Division then explained it issued its revised ruling after concluding that if a party has a statutory right to make a decision, which may be then filed by mail, this period would necessarily be shortened if the appellate body could insist that it physically receive the mailed notice no later than the last day of the period of limitation. 

The Court concluded that the method of service of a notice of appeal, by mail or by personal delivery, should not determine the time period available to the claimant to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.

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