Audits and reports issued during the week ending June 4, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending June 4, 2021.

Click on the text highlighted in colorto access the complete audit report.

Local Governments

Auditors conducted reviews of 20 adopted budgets of various counties, cities, towns and villages across the state to assess whether local officials adequately considered the impact of the pandemic on their financial operations while developing their 2021 fiscal year budgets. Below are the findings of some of the communities reviewed:

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Town of Big Flats (Chemung County) Town of Big Flats officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Village of Camillus (Onondaga County) Village of Camillus officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – City of Canandaigua (Ontario County) City of Canandaigua officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Jefferson County Jefferson County officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Town of North Hempstead (Nassau County) Town of North Hempstead officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Otsego County Otsego County officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.

Adequacy of 2021 Budgets – Steuben County Steuben County officials adequately assessed the impact of the pandemic on financial operations while developing estimates for significant revenues and expenditures in the 2021 adopted budget.  

Village of Castile – Water Billing for Letchworth State Park (Wyoming County) Village officials did not accurately bill State Parks for water usage. They were using incorrect water usage overage rates since June 2017. As a result, they overbilled State Parks by $7,577. In addition, village officials charged $12,000 in late fees that were not authorized by the contract or contract amendment.

East Meredith Rural Fire District – Financial Activities (Delaware County) The board did not establish adequate controls over cash receipts and disbursements. Auditors found the board did not segregate duties or provide additional oversight over receipts and disbursements to ensure the treasurer accurately recorded all transactions in a timely manner.  

Franklin-Treadwell Fire District – Disbursements (Delaware County) Although district officials had some good controls over disbursements, the board did not always provide adequate oversight of the treasurer’s activities. The Board of Fire Commissioners did not properly segregate duties over disbursements or implement adequate mitigating controls. The treasurer processed 55 electronic transfers and 10 cash withdrawals totaling $856,347 without board oversight. Aside from minor exceptions, which auditors discussed with district officials, disbursements were authorized, supported and for appropriate district purposes. However, the failure to review disbursement activities increases the risk for unauthorized and inappropriate transactions.

Town of Friendship – Justice Court Operations (Allegany County) Although the justices properly collected, recorded and reported fines and fees, they did not deposit and disburse all fines and fees in a timely manner. Auditors found 67 receipts totaling almost $11,000 were not deposited within 72 hours, as required. Monthly accountabilities were not performed. As of Dec.1, 2020 the town board had not completed an audit of the 2018 and 2019 records, as required. As a result, the board’s ability to effectively monitor financial operations of the court was diminished.

Town of Hancock – Justice Court Operations (Delaware County) Fines and fees auditors tested were properly recorded and deposited intact and in a timely manner. However, monthly accountabilities were not performed, and cash balances exceeded known liabilities by $3,436 as of June 30, 2020.

NFC Development Corporation – Project Approval and Monitoring (Niagara County) Corporation officials awarded projects in accordance with established guidelines, but once funds were disbursed, officials generally did not follow up with businesses to ensure they complied with their agreements. Auditors examined 19 project agreements. They found officials did not confirm that the 18 businesses, which agreed to create or retain a total of 96 positions, actually created or retained them. In addition, three of the eight loans reviewed had delinquent payments totaling $39,000. The board also did not receive project status reports and it did not meet as required.

Town of Owasco – Highway Department (Cayuga County) Town officials did not adequately oversee highway purchasing, planning and interfund charges.

Auditors found 596 highway claims totaling $349,824 that did not have an approved purchase order request; 599 claims totaling $356,815 did not have an approved purchase order request; and 234 claims totaling $96,900 did not have documentation to support a business purpose.

Tompkins County Development Corporation – Board Oversight (Tomkins County) The board generally oversaw operations but was unaware that its policy covered the calculation of the administrative fee. As a result, an administrative fee of $88,815 was collected even though only $1,000 should have been collected in accordance with the current board-approved policy.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County) Auditors found that significant revenue and expenditure projections in the adopted budget are not reasonable. In addition, city officials’ continued practice of using debt to pay for recurring costs is imprudent.

###

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 180,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. Visit the Reading Room for contract FOIL requests, bid protest decisions and commonly requested data.

 

 

Adjudicating allegations of errors in the text of laws as printed in a legal resource, manual or publication

In this lawsuit the Court of Appeals, Justice Fahey dissenting in part, observed that for several consecutive years, the Plaintiffs bought the annual edition of a legal resource manual published and sold by the Defendant. 

The main issue in this appeal was whether Plaintiffs' complaint adequately pleaded a deceptive act or practice prohibited by General Business Law §349 [GBL §349] based on Defendant's alleged misrepresentations about the completeness of the laws reproduced in one section of its publication. 

Although Defendant's acts are consumer-oriented*, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's acts were not materially misleading. Contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, the court opined that "a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances here would not have believed that [Defendant] represented that the section at issue, containing rent control statutes and regulations, was current and accurate for its one-year shelf life."

In sum, said the court, Plaintiffs' "cause of action is based on purchases of yearly editions of the [publication] under a sales agreement that charged extra for any updates of the year's materials contained in the corresponding edition."

Observing that Plaintiffs' allegations "were limited to omissions and inaccuracies in a section of the [publication] they knew was subject to legislative amendment, which they concede were corrected in the 2017 edition after the errors were brought to defendant's attention, and which were specifically contemplated by defendant's express disclaimer of the currentness of the [publication's] contents", the Court of Appeals concluded that "[under] the circumstances, plaintiffs, or any reasonable consumer, could not have been materially misled to believe that defendant guaranteed Part III of the [publication] was complete and accurate at any given time."

As the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead this element, the Court of Appeals held that "their GBL §349 cause of action was properly dismissed."

* The alleged misrepresentations were contained in a manual that was then marketed to and available for purchase by consumers.

Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision.

 

A plaintiff typically must initiate a Civil Service Law §75-b "whistle blower" cause of action within one year of the alleged act or omission

Civil Service Law §75-b, the so-called whistle-blowing statute, provides that "[a] public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee ... because the employee discloses to governmental body information:

(i) regarding a violation of a law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; or

(ii) which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes [a violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation]".

Further, in order to maintain a Civil Service Law §75-b cause of action, a plaintiff must commence the action "within one year after it accrues."

On April 8, 2013, a public employee [Plaintiff] commenced legal action against his public employer [Respondent] alleging that Respondent had terminated his employment in violation of Labor Law §740 in retaliation for his complaints of certain improprieties alleged to have occurred in his department in November 2009. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to allege a violation of Civil Service Law75-b.

The Respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the Respondent's motion and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division order affirmed the Supreme Court's action, with costs, explaining:

1. Employee commenced this action on April 8, 2013, and, therefore, only the retaliatory acts that were alleged to have occurred on or after April 8, 2012, may be considered as timely.

Accordingly, said the court, the allegedly retaliatory acts which took place in 2009 and 2010 "were insufficient to establish a viable claim of a continuing violation" and, further, the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the running of the statute of limitations.

2. Civil Service Law §75-b(4) provides that nothing in the statute prohibits any "personnel action which otherwise would have been taken regardless of any disclosure of information."

Here, opined the Appellate Division, the Respondent "established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it terminated Employee for budgetary reasons and Employee "failed to raise a triable issue of fact."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision. 

 

Leave for Quarantine

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published Advisory Memorandum 2021-04, Attendance Rule 21.11 – Leave for Quarantine. 

The text of Advisory Memorandum 2021-04 is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AdvMemo21-04.cfm.

If you wish to print Advisory Memorandum 2021-04, a version in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/am21-04.pdf.

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm.

N.B. Except as otherwise specified in a particular rule or regulation, the Rules and Regulations of the New York State Department Of Civil Service apply to incumbents of positions in the classified service of the State as the employer, a public authority, a public benefit corporation and an other entity for which the New York State Civil Service Law is administered by the New York State Department of Civil Service.