Former Avon, New York, police chief sentenced for stealing federal funds

On June 5, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the following statement on the sentencing of former Avon Police Chief Joseph Geer for stealing federal funds: 

“This police chief swore to uphold the law but instead used his position to enrich himself at the expense of his community. He was ordered to pay back what he stole, and he paid full restitution, amounting to over $6,000. My thanks to U.S. Attorney DiGiacomo and the FBI for partnering with my office to hold him accountable.”

Geer pleaded guilty before Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford to theft of funds related to a federal program. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas M. Testani, who handled the case reported that in 2022, the Avon Central School District and the Village of Avon entered into a School Resource Officer Contract [SRO], in which the Village of Avon agreed to provide an off-duty member of the Avon Police Department to provide various services to the school district and who would be paid an hourly wage by the school district. 

Between September 2023 and January 2024, Geer was employed as the Avon Police Chief and as an SRO under the contract. During that time Geer billed the school district for hours during which he did not perform SRO duties under the contract and assigned an on-duty subordinate officer to “cover” his SRO obligations, thus depriving the Village of Avon of a patrolling on-duty police officer.

“During his time as Avon Police Chief, Joseph Geer violated his oath to protect his community,” said Matthew Miraglia, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI’s Buffalo Field Office. “Ultimately, Geer chose greed over integrity. The FBI will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of fraud and hold public officials accountable.”

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. Allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money may be reported by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by mailing a complaint to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.ny.gov/investigations.

Requesting a school board to approve a "voter proposition" submitted by a resident of the school district

Petitioner in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education challenged the school board rejection of certain proposed propositions for placement on the ballot for consideration by school district voters after the school board determined the two proposed propositions were not within the power of voters. 

The first proposition would extend the term of the lease between the school board and the school district's public library (the “lease proposition”) while the second would discontinue the lawsuit the school board brought against the school district library (the “litigation proposition”).

Noting that a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which they seek relief, the Commissioner held that the school board reasonably declined to adopt the lease and litigation propositions.

The Commissioner's decision is set out below.

Appeals of GLORIA SPRADLIN from action of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District regarding a proposition.

Decision No. 18,561

(May 5, 2025)

Guercio & Guercio LLP., attorneys for respondent, Matthew J. Mehnert, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--In two separate appeals, petitioner challenges determinations of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District (“respondent” or “school board”) that two proposed propositions were not within the power of voters.  Because the appeals present common questions of fact and law, they are consolidated for decision (8 NYCRR 275.18).  The appeals must be dismissed.

Respondent leases space within one of its elementary schools to the Island Trees Public Library (“library”) to operate a library therein.[1] The current lease runs from July 2021 to June 2031.  In July 2023, the school board sued the library for failing to make payments required under the lease.

On or about March 18, 2024, petitioner requested that the school board approve two voter propositions.  The first would extend the term of the lease between the school board and library to 50 years (“lease proposition”) while the second would discontinue the lawsuit the school board brought against the library (“litigation proposition”).  At a special meeting on April 10, 2024, respondent declined to place these propositions on the ballot.  These appeals ensued.

Petitioner argues that sections 255 and 260 of the Education Law impliedly afford voters the authority to vote on the lease and litigation.  For relief, petitioner seeks determinations that the propositions are within the power of the district’s voters and orders placing them on the ballot.

Respondent contends that petitioner’s arguments are without merit.

Education Law § 2035 (2) provides, as relevant here, that “any proposition may be rejected by [a] … board of education if the purpose of the proposition is not within the power of the voters …” (see Appeal of Johnson, 44 Ed Dept Rep 382, Decision No. 15,206; Appeal of Lawson, 36 id. 450, Decision No. 13,774; Appeals of Cappa, 36 id. 278, Decision No. 13,724). 

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which they seek relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884). 

The school board reasonably declined to adopt the lease and litigation propositions.  With respect to the lease proposition, boards of education possess statutory power to lease unused real property for 10 or less years (Education Law § 403-a).[2]  “[B]ecause the Legislature has given the board this authority, it [would be] inappropriate to put a proposition before the voters that would override or limit [such] authority” (Appeal of Munch, 47 Ed Dept Rep 199, Decision No. 15,667; see also Appeal of Johnson, 44 Ed Dept Rep 382, Decision No. 15,206; Appeal of Rosenberg, 31 id. 398, Decision No. 12,680).  While petitioner argues that the Commissioner ordered a school board to “place the question of the conveyance of [a]... building to the board of library trustees before the voters” in Matter of the Board of the Library Trustees of the North-Merrick Public Library,[3] that appeal involved “unique circumstances” not applicable here (Appeal of the Board of Trustees of the Peninsula Public Library, 27 Ed Dept Rep 299, Decision No. 11,953).  Thus, I find that the school board appropriately declined to present the lease proposition to voters.[4]

Petitioner’s remaining arguments concerning the lease proposition are unpersuasive.  Education Law § 255, which concerns the “[e]stablishment of a public library,” is inapplicable.  And a provision in the lease agreement indicating that a “tentative lease agreement” for longer than 10 years must be approved by voters merely restates the requirements of Education Law § 403-a (see Education Law § 403-a [5] [a “board of education … [is] hereby authorized to enter into a lease agreement … for a period in excess of ten years subject, however, to voter approval by referendum”).

I further find that respondent appropriately rejected the litigation proposition.  A school board is responsible for the “superintendence, management and control” of its district and possesses “all the powers reasonably necessary to exercise powers granted [it] expressly or by implication” (Education Law § 1709 [13], [33]).  This includes the ability to initiate or discontinue litigation (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Roosevelt Union Free School Dist. v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 282 AD2d 166, 171-72 [3d Dept 2001]).  As such, voters lack authority to dictate the course of litigation to which a school district is a party—and respondent was justified in rejecting a proposition indicating the same.

I have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.

[1] The Island Trees Public Library is a school district public library. 

[2] In addition to the 10-year limitation, such a lease may only occur if:  (1) the property is not currently needed for school district purposes; (2) leasing is in the best interest of the school district; and (3) the lease is for fair market value (Education Law § 403-a [1]; see Appeal of Luciano, 52 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,308; Appeal of Forest, 53 id., Decision No. 16,501).  

[3] 25 Ed Dept Rep 321, Dec. No. 11,601. 

[4] Respondent acknowledges that it lacks statutory authority to lease its property for more than 10 years at a time.  Indeed, the lease agreement contemplates that, if the school board and library reach a “tentative … agreement” following “good faith negotiations,” the school board will submit a “voter referendum proposition at the next annual meeting” for a lease of more than 10 years (see Education Law § 403-a [5]).

Termination of employee by the New York City Police Commissioner following a disciplinary hearing unanimously confirmed by the Appellate Division

The New York City Police Commissioner terminated Petitioner's service with the New York City Police Department [NYPD] after Petitioner was found guilty disciplinary charges that alleged that he struck his wife, brandished a pistol at her, threatened her and his minor son, and failed to report his arrest to the NYPD's Operations Unit.

Petitioner appealed the Commissioner's decision and the penalty imposed by the Police Commissioner.

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the Commissioner's decision, noting that the Hearing Officer's determinations that:

1. Hearsay statements of Petitioner's wife and son were credible;

2. Petitioner's testimony was not credible; and 

3. That the photograph introduced by NYPD was sufficiently authenticated.

The court, citing Matter of Benjamin v Department of Housing Preserv. & Devel. of City of N.Y., 187 AD3d 433, also pointed out that Petitioner may not rely on a notification of disposition from the NYPD Transit Bureau's internal investigation, submitted for the first time with his petition, because "judicial review is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency".

The Appellate Division also noted that it did not have the discretionary authority to review Petitioner's unpreserved challenges to the admission of sealed arrest records at the hearing, NYPD's reliance on Civil Service Law §75, or the Hearing Officer's representation of the evidence.

Considering Petitioner's challenge to the penalty imposed, termination of his employment with NYPD, the Appellate Division opined that "The penalty of termination does not shock one's sense of fairness in light of [Petitioner's] egregious conduct", citing Matter of Marks, 234 AD3d at 413; and Matter of Castillo v Shea, 226 AD3d 531, lv dismissed 42 NY3d 1071.

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

Attorney's failure to appear in Supreme Court for oral argument reviewed by the Appellate Division

In this appeal concerning seeking public records pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law, the New York City Fire Department [NYFD], NYFD sought to have the Appellate Division vacate its default in appearing in Supreme Court for oral argument. 

The Appellate Division said FDNY was required to show it had a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the amended petition.

Citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 215 AD3d 645, the Appellate Division opined that "Where the claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default, the court may accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse". The court then opined that the ill health of the litigant's attorney is an acceptable excuse for a default and that FDNY demonstrated that its attorney failed to appear at oral argument due to illness, which was corroborated by medical documentation. 

The Appellate Division noted that:

1. FDNY's attorney had notified the petitioner's attorney and the Supreme Court of her illness several hours before the scheduled oral argument;

2. Petitioner had consented to an adjournment of the oral argument; and

3. FDNY's attorney reasonably believed that her appearance was not required.

Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court should have granted FDNY's motion to vacate its judgment and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a determination of the amended petition on the merits.

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

Concerning courts consideration of an inference of unlawful discrimination advanced by a plaintiff to show that the employer subjected the plaintiff to disparate treatment

In an action the Plaintiff, who had been employed by the City University of New York [CCNY] as a peace officer on a CCNY campus, sought to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin and for alleged unlawful retaliation.

Supreme Court granted the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's granting the Employer's motion. In so doing, the Appellate Division, citing Graham v Long Is. R.R., 230 F3d 34, noted that "To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL]:

1. An employer must demonstrate either a plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, 

2. If the employer offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the employer's explanations were pretextual.

In this instance, the court, with respect to the "employment discrimination cause of action", observed that the Employer argued the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the fourth element: that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Addressing this "fourth element", the Appellate Division said an employer can demonstrate that the termination did not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination by providing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, and "demonstrating the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether its reason for termination was merely pretextual."

Citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at page 308, footnote 5, the Appellate Division opined that "[It] matters not whether the [employer's] stated reason for terminating plaintiff was a good reason, a bad reason, or a petty one. What matters is that the [employer's] stated reason for terminating plaintiff was nondiscriminatory".

In this instance the court concluded the Employer "met its prima facie burden by offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the [Plaintiff's] termination and by demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact as to whether its explanations were pretextual". In contrast, "Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding pretext for discrimination".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly granted the [Employer's] motion for summary judgment dismissing the [Plaintiff's] complaint".

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

Denise M. Miranda confirmed as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights

On June 2, 2025, the New York State Division of Human Rights announced that Denise M. Miranda, Esq. was confirmed as Commissioner of the Division by the New York State Senate following her historic nomination by Governor Kathy Hochul. 

The Division's announcement noted:

"Commissioner Miranda becomes the first Afro-Latina to serve in this role at the Division, and her confirmation follows her service as the Acting Commissioner since March 2024. 

"Under the Commissioner’s leadership, the Division has launched ambitious efforts to overhaul the agency’s discrimination complaint intake and case management processes while also implementing vital organizational changes and operational improvements. 

"These essential upgrades will result in a bolder, more powerful, and more efficient Division that is prepared to protect the rights of all New Yorkers at a time when that mission has never been more critical.

"Commissioner Miranda was appointed by Governor Hochul in March 2024 to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights. 

"Prior to this, Commissioner Miranda served as the Executive Director of the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs for seven years. She oversaw the agency’s operations, which included investigations into abuse and neglect, criminal prosecutions, and administrative disciplinary proceedings. Under her leadership, the Justice Center managed the care of over one million individuals, with a workforce of more than 425 employees and a $41 million operating budget. 

 

"For nearly 30 years, Commissioner Miranda has been actively engaged in the practice of law and focused the majority of her career on social justice issues and protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals. Beyond her professional accomplishments, she is deeply committed to community service and embodies the values of justice, inclusion, and strategic leadership."

 

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the audits described below on May 30, 2025

The New York State and agency audits summarized below were posted on the Internet on May 30, 2025.

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

Empire State Development – COVID-19 Pandemic Small Business Recovery Grant Program (2023-S-10)
Empire State Development (ESD) was charged with administering the COVID-19 Pandemic Small Business Recovery Grant Program (Program) designed to support small businesses or for-profit independent arts and cultural organizations impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic that either did not qualify for federal assistance programs or that received inadequate federal COVID-19 support. ESD awarded the entirety of the $760 million allocated for small businesses to 40,842 applicants, with an average grant amount of $18,608. Auditors found ESD awarded almost $4.1 million to 101 businesses that were ineligible because they had already received assistance from federal business assistance programs. Additionally, ESD did not consider business type, need, or factors established in the original goals of the Program when awarding grants, instead favoring a first-come, first-served methodology to awarding grants, which resulted in tens of thousands of businesses that went unfunded and certain types of businesses—most notably sole proprietor transportation businesses without employees (i.e., rideshare drivers)—receiving a significant percentage of the total dollars spent.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Jackson Child Development Center, Inc.: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2022-S-21)
Jackson Child Development Center, Inc. (JCDC), a New York City-based not-for-profit organization, is approved by the State Education Department (SED) to provide preschool special education services to children with disabilities ages 3 to 5. For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2020, JCDC reported approximately $24 million in reimbursable costs for its SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $3,020,800 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Department of Health and Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services – Oversight of Water Supply Emergency Plans (Follow-Up) (2024-F-32)
The State Public Health Law requires community water systems that supply drinking water to more than 3,300 people to prepare and submit a Water Supply Emergency Plan to the Department of Health (DOH) for approval at least once every five years. Plans must include an Emergency Response Plan, a Vulnerability Analysis Assessment, and a Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment. A prior audit, issued in June 2023, found several instances where it had been more than 10 years since the last Emergency Response Plan or Vulnerability Analysis submission, and some water systems had never submitted a Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment. Further, there was limited participation by Local Health Department staff in calls and site visits where the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) communicates recommendations to water systems. DOH and DHSES officials have made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, implementing four recommendations and not implementing one.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – Monitoring of Homeless Data (2023-S-38)
The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) supervises homeless shelters and related programs through 58 local departments of social services (Local Districts). While reports from Local Districts provide aggregate data to OTDA, Local Districts typically also collect and submit client-level data on the populations they serve to Homeless Management Information Systems (HMISs). In New York, federally funded regional or local planning bodies—Continuums of Care (CoCs)—that coordinate housing and services funding control access to the HMISs but are not required to share this data with OTDA or provide open access to the Local Districts that submit this data. Auditors found OTDA does not have access to the client-level data collected in the various HMISs—data that could be analyzed and used to help identify the root causes of homelessness, gauge progress toward achieving permanent housing, and better determine what programs are used or needed by the homeless population. OTDA asserts that it has no oversight of the HMIS data controlled by the CoCs and, consequently, has acquired permission to access the data from only seven of 24 CoCs, which represent approximately 7% of the State’s homeless population based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s point-in-time count.

New York State Health Insurance Program – UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York: Overpayments for Physician-Administered Drugs (Follow-Up) (2024-F-35)
The Empire Plan is the primary health insurance plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP), providing over one million members with health insurance coverage. The Department of Civil Service, which administers NYSHIP, contracts with UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York (United) to administer the Medical/Surgical Program of the Empire Plan and to process and pay claims submitted by health care providers. Medical/surgical benefits cover a range of services, including physician-administered drugs, which are drugs (other than vaccines) that are administered by a health care provider in a physician’s office or other outpatient clinical setting. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, identified over $5.5 million in actual and potential overpayments for physician-administered drugs. United officials made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit, recovering about $501,000 of the overpaid claims, and were taking steps to make more recoveries. Of the initial report’s eight audit recommendations, one was implemented, six were partially implemented, and one was not implemented.