Alert from GOVTECH TODAY dated April 23, 2021

GOVTECH TODAY advises governments to take note that "Bad Internet Bots Are On The Rise." 

A web robot, robot or simply bot, is a software application that runs automated tasks [scripts] over the Internet. GOVTECH TODAY reports that new data from Imperva, an IT security company, suggests government websites may be at higher risk of being targeted by “bad bots” as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Experts, however, say "there’s plenty agencies can do to be prepared." READ MORE here.

Registration Coordinator Lauren Fahndrich stated: 

"As shown by recent breaches, hackers are increasingly launching more sophisticated and targeted attacks that are becoming more difficult to detect.

"To combat these threats, it’s critical for state and local governments to add some new tools to their cybersecurity toolkits. Watch now to learn more about the evolving cybersecurity landscape and how cyber threat intelligence, an incident response retainer and other tactics can help you defend against and respond to the next big attack.

"This complimentary, one hour webinar is available on-demand, and you are welcome to share this invitation with any colleagues that may benefit from the information!"

For additional information, contact:

Lauren Fahndrich
Registration Coordinator
Government Technology | A division of e.Republic
https://webinars.govtech.com/
800-940-6039 ext. 1378
lfahndrich@govtech.com

Failure to fully comply with the relevant rules and regulations may prove fatal to filing a viable administrative appeal of an adverse administrative decision

The Workers' Compensation Board declined to review of a decision by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge on the grounds that the self-insured employer [Employer] failed to comply with the controlling provisions of its rules and regulations.

A correction officer [Claimant] assaulted by an inmate filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for an injury to his jaw and for "post-concussive syndrome and photophobia." A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ) amended the claim to include an injury to the Claimant's head and found, among other things, that Claimant "is totally industrially disabled based upon his work-related injuries and legal blindness."

The Employer filed an application for review of the WCLJ's determination by the Workers' Compensation Board, challenging, among other things, the WCLJ's finding that [Claimant was] totally industrially disabled. The Board denied the application for Board review of the WCLJ's ruling because of Employer did not answer a question on the application form it had submitted seeking such review. Employer next appealed the Board's rejection of its application for review.

The Appellate Division affirm the Board's decision, noting that it had "consistently recognized that 'the Board may adopt reasonable rules consistent with and supplemental to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, and the Chair of the Board may make reasonable regulations consistent with the provisions thereof.'"

The court explained that the regulations require, in relevant part, that "an application to the Board for administrative review of a decision by a [WCLJ] shall be in the format as prescribed by the Chair [and] . . . must be filled out completely",* noting that "[w]here, as here, a party who is represented by counsel fails to comply with the formatting, completion and service submission requirements set forth by the Board, the Board may, in its discretion, deny an application for review."

Further, opined the court, Employer's reliance on "its responses to other questions on the application for Board review does not cure the defective response to question number 15," the specific question which the Board found was not answered.

* See 12 NYCRR 300.13[b]

Click HERE to access the full text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Elements to be considered in evaluating justifications advanced for rejecting a Freedom of Information Law request filed with a governmental entity subject it provisions

In reviewing an appeal from a Supreme Court decision which denied the petition filed by Plaintiff seeking to compel the New York City Dept. of Investigation [Investigations] to disclose its entire case file and all documents related to a certain investigation under color of the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL],* the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's ruling, in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings as to the remaining records responsive to the FOIL request before a different Justice, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, without costs.

In particular, the Appellate Division found:

1. Investigations failed to meet its burden of establishing that "disclosure of any records responsive to Petitioner's FOIL request would 'interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings', which exemption 'ceases to apply after enforcement investigations and any ensuing judicial proceedings have run their course.';

2. " Investigations failed to establish that disclosure would 'identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation ... [and] in the absence of any evidence that [any] person received an express or implied promise of confidentiality'; and

3. Investigations' assertion that "disclosure would reveal nonroutine criminal investigative techniques or procedures is conclusory."

As to certain email messages offered by Plaintiff in support of its Article 78 petition, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Gould, 89 NY2d at 277, opined that they "are covered by the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption " of Public Officers Law §87[2][g] as they amount to "opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making".

However, said the Appellate Division, "the applicability of this exemption to any other responsive records cannot be determined on this record in the absence of in camera review.  

The court than remanded the matter to Supreme Court for a de novo determination, after an in camera inspection, of the applicability of the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption and any other exemptions properly raised by Investigations.

* Public Officers Law §§84-90

Click HERE to access the full text of the Appellate Division's decision.