County executive lawsuit cost $52,300

An aborted lawsuit filed by the Putnam County executive against the Legislature cost more than $50,000 and accounted for one-third of a request by the Law Department for more money to pay outside law firms.

After Amy Sayegh, who chairs the Legislature and its Audit Committee, criticized the spending as excessive, the committee voted Monday (Jan. 27) to delay until February the department’s $150,000 request. 

Michael Lewis, the finance commissioner, said the Law Department already received $200,000 after exhausting its $300,000 budget in 2024 for outside counsel. He said a “good amount” of the billing was from Harris Beach, a firm defending the county in a lawsuit filed by the contractor hired to reconstruct the intersection of Oscawana Lake and Peekskill Hollow roads in Putnam Valley. 

Another firm, Murtagh, Cossu, Venditti & Castro-Blanco, based in White Plains, billed the county $52,300 for representing Kevin Byrne in his lawsuit against the Legislature. He sued over a law that amended the county charter so lawmakers can fire he county attorney at will and a resolution that allowed them to hire their own attorney without Law Department approval.

Byrne dropped the lawsuit on Dec. 18, citing its projected cost. “That’s where the money’s being spent,” said Legislator Paul Jonke (R-Southeast), on Monday. “That’s where the money’s being wasted.” 

Sales tax extension

The three legislators on the Audit Committee on Monday weighed Byrne’s request to ask the state for authorization to renew a 1 percent sales tax increase that will otherwise expire on Nov. 30. 

Putnam residents pay 8.375 percent on purchases — 4 percent in state tax, 4 percent to the county and 0.375 percent to the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District. The Putnam tax has been 4 percent since 2007, when the state renewed a previous 0.5 percent increase and allowed the county to raise the rate by another 0.5 percent. A series of extensions, most recently in 2023, have kept the rate at 4 percent.

Legislator Dan Birmingham (R-Mahopac), who chaired the Legislature in 2007, said sales tax and other revenue were “tanking” at the time while expenses rose. Today, he noted, the county has $134 million in savings, including $78 million that has not been budgeted.

Birmingham, who left the Legislature in 2012 but returned this month after winning a seat in November, suggested the Legislature ask the state for a 0.5 percent increase, which would lower the tax to 3.5 percent, to “return some of that fund balance directly back to the taxpayers.”

In a memo addressed to legislators, Lewis advocated for 1 percent, which equates to about $22 million annually, or 25 percent of the $88 million collected in 2024. Those revenues allowed the Legislature to exempt sales tax on clothing and footwear under $110 and reduce its property tax levy and cut tax rates, he said. 

“All these accomplishments would be jeopardized if Putnam County failed to extend its existing rate,” Lewis said.

Behind The Story

Type: News

News: Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Leonard Sparks has been reporting for The Current since 2020. The Peekskill resident holds a bachelor’s degree in English from Morgan State University and a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Maryland and previously covered Sullivan County and Newburgh for The Times Herald-Record in Middletown. He can be reached at [email protected].

One reply on “Putnam Legal Spending Criticized”

  1. The Putnam County Legislature’s efforts to undermine the strict separation of powers by unilaterally changing the county charter required legal counsel to represent the executive branch. Unfortunately, as the Legislature knows, the charter restricts the county attorney from representing the interests of the county executive when there is a conflict between the county executive and the Legislature. Therefore, the only way to provide the legal services required, as provided in the charter, was from outside counsel assigned by the county attorney.

    Ultimately, the litigation referenced in this article was dropped to prevent additional charges to the county which would have resulted from protracted litigation in response to the actions initiated by certain legislators intent on changing the county’s charter. My position remains that this change violates state law because it did not include the required mandatory referendum for enactment. Just as the State of New York cannot supersede our Constitution, local and county laws cannot simply ignore and supersede state law or our Constitution.

    Byrne is the Putnam County executive.

Comments are closed.