Buxbaum v. Rockland County

Background

Michael Buxbaum, who was representing himself, sued the County of Rockland. His complaint initially described fraud claims and sought nearly $100 million in damages. In his response to an earlier court order, Buxbaum identified the federal False Claims Act and the New York State False Claims Act as the legal bases for his claims.

Buxbaum alleged that the County issued annual financial statements for 2020 through 2023 based on an audit conducted with an independent certified public account. He claimed the statements were fraudulent because they said the audits complied with generally accepted auditing standards but did not affirmatively include language about testing internal controls and compliance with laws, contracts, and grant agreements. He sought $25 million or $100 million and asked that Edwin Day, Stephen F. DeGroat, and Thomas Walsh II be removed from office.

The court had previously described Buxbaum’s repeated failures to comply with court orders and instructions. It had ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for noncompliance and vexatious litigation. Buxbaum responded on May 22, 2025.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Buxbaum failed to establish a basic federal False Claims Act case. Such a case requires a false or fraudulent claim, knowledge that the claim was false or fraudulent, presentation of the claim to the United States, and an effort to obtain money from the federal treasury. The court found no connection between the financial statements and any request or demand for money from the federal government. It also found that Buxbaum did not identify what payments were made by either the federal or New York governments. The court stated that this also made the New York State claim deficient on its face.

The court explained that False Claims Act allegations are subject to a heightened pleading requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). That rule requires a party alleging fraud to describe the circumstances of the alleged fraud with particularity. The court found that Buxbaum offered only a threadbare assertion and no facts supporting allegations of fraudulent payments.

The court further held that the reports Buxbaum identified were not shown to be false. In its view, failure to fully follow the Government Auditing Standards Yellow Book did not make the financial reports false. The court stated that an auditor’s assertion that an audit complied with those standards was not a factual statement because the standards are general and often subjective. It also concluded that the word “should” in the cited standards did not make the recommended disclosures compulsory, and that the absence of Buxbaum’s preferred language did not establish that the relevant testing had not occurred.

The court found no factual basis for holding Day, DeGroat, or Walsh II responsible for any allegedly fraudulent statements. It noted that Day and DeGroat appeared on the County’s annual financial reports, but that neither the reports nor Buxbaum’s filings explained why Walsh II, the County District Attorney, should be involved.

Disposition

The court denied Buxbaum’s requests. It also dismissed the action with prejudice based on the deficiencies described in the opinion and Buxbaum’s repeated noncompliance with court orders and alleged vexatious use of the court system. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action, mail Buxbaum a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.