By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 10/26/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Government Accountability / Taxpayer Funds / Labor
NEW YORK CITY, NY –
A New York state technology worker whose criminal case ended without a conviction is still waiting to return to work, even after an arbitrator ordered the state to restore his job, back pay and benefits.
Michael Genevick, 49, was suspended from the Office of Information Technology Services and charged with six felonies in May 2025. Investigators alleged that he received at least $8,290 in improper overtime while reporting workdays that sometimes ran from 7 a.m. to midnight.
The felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors. The case was then adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and sealed on November 19, according to court records reviewed by the Times Union.
An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not a conviction or an admission of guilt. Under New York law, a case that is not restored during the statutory period is dismissed, and the arrest and prosecution are treated as a nullity.
Genevick and the Public Employees Federation pursued a separate labor case. In February, arbitrator Thomas R. Rinaldo dismissed the disciplinary charges and ordered the state to reinstate Genevick without discipline, restore his benefits and pay the wages he lost during the suspension.
The state has not carried out that order. Instead, the Office of Information Technology Services asked state Supreme Court to overturn it, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and did not decide whether the original suspension had probable cause.
The union says the final and binding award should be confirmed. The dispute is pending before Acting Supreme Court Justice Kimberly A. O’Connor.
The allegations began with an anonymous tip to the state Inspector General’s Office. Investigators claimed Genevick billed overtime while doing unrelated activities, including volunteering with the Greenwich Fire Department.
Genevick worked remotely during and after the pandemic. Court filings said his supervisors did not object when he began logging extended days in 2020, when state technology workers were supporting testing and mass-vaccination operations.
The arbitrator found that the state had not shown Genevick’s volunteer work prevented him from performing his job or responding to work matters. He also found that Genevick had not received specific guidance about personal activity while working in what the decision described as availability or standby status.
That finding exposes a management failure beyond one employee. If an agency authorizes remote overtime without defining when a worker must be actively performing tasks, when the worker is merely available and what activities are forbidden, discipline can depend on rules that were never clearly communicated.
The state has a duty to protect taxpayer money. It also has a duty to investigate fairly, write enforceable workplace rules and comply with binding decisions unless a court lawfully vacates them.
Genevick’s criminal case and labor case use different standards. The end of the criminal prosecution did not automatically decide the employment dispute. The arbitration award did decide that dispute unless the state succeeds in its court challenge.
The case now leaves two competing accountability questions. State officials must explain how overtime was approved for years if the entries were improper. They must also explain why Genevick remains out of work months after an arbitrator ordered reinstatement.
The alleged loss was $8,290. The final taxpayer cost can grow through back pay, benefits, legal fees and the administrative expense of fighting an award the state agreed to resolve through arbitration.
No court has ruled on the state’s current challenge. Genevick has not been reinstated, and the state agencies involved declined or did not provide substantive comment to the Times Union.
The unresolved issue is no longer simply whether one employee filled out a time sheet correctly. It is whether New York can supervise remote work, pursue misconduct allegations and honor due process without allowing an avoidable personnel dispute to become a longer and more expensive public liability.
Sources
Times Union, State Worker Who Beat Felony Charges Fights for Back Pay
New York State Senate, Criminal Procedure Law Section 170.55
Leave a Reply