KINGSTON — A state Supreme Court judge on Monday continued an injunction blocking Sullivan County from moving forward with the closure of the Care Center at Sunset Lake while a lawsuit challenging the county’s closure process proceeds.
Justice Kevin R. Bryant had temporarily halted the closure Sept. 16, barring further resident transfers and staff layoffs and requiring the county to continue providing required services until a hearing could be held.
Care Center supporters gathered outside the courtroom before arguments began. Lise Kennedy said she was “really hopeful” and wanted the case to provide “the opportunity to turn this around” and preserve the nursing home as a resource for the community.
Ken Walter, a frequent speaker at Sullivan County Legislature meetings, was focused on the record of the March meeting.
“Where’s the vote?” Walter asked, questioning why no record of the action had been publicly available and whether the county’s stated reason for entering executive session reflected what legislators actually discussed.
During Monday’s hearing at the Ulster County Courthouse, Bryant focused much of his questioning on a March 26 executive session and whether state Department of Health rules allowed the County Legislature to discuss the Care Center’s closure outside public view.
Deputy County Attorney Khalid Bashjawish, representing Sullivan County and County Manager Joshua Potosek, acknowledged that the public was not specifically told the Care Center’s closure would be discussed during the March executive session.
Bashjawish argued county officials were following DOH requirements against publicly disclosing a potential closure before state approval. He said premature disclosure could prompt nurses and other employees to leave while the state was still reviewing the plan, potentially jeopardizing resident care.
Bryant repeatedly questioned whether those requirements actually superseded the state Open Meetings Law or created an exemption from it.
An attorney representing DOH confirmed that the state maintains a regulated nursing-home closure process but did not take a position on whether the March executive session complied with the Open Meetings Law.
Attorney Michael Sussman, representing the residents, relatives and employees challenging the closure, argued that the county was conflating two different actions. He said the Legislature’s decision over whether to close the Care Center was a public policy choice that should have been debated and voted on openly, while the later closure plan submitted to DOH dealt with the mechanics of carrying out that decision and could contain information subject to confidentiality requirements.
After hearing the arguments, Bryant kept the restrictions in place.
“This preliminary injunction will remain in effect until further notice of this court,” Bryant said.
Walter offered a shorter assessment after leaving the courtroom.
“They got slapped down,” he said.
Bryant did not decide the underlying Article 78 case Monday. Sullivan County has moved to dismiss the petition, and the state indicated it also intends to seek dismissal.
After the hearing, Sussman said Bryant’s decision to keep the injunction in place showed the petitioners had cleared the legal threshold for preliminary relief, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm and the balance of equities.
Sussman said the larger issue could still be resolved outside court if the Legislature returned to the question publicly.
“What needs to happen as quickly as possible is the Sullivan County Legislature needs to convene and take a vote after public discussion and public debate on whether to close this facility,” he said.
Attorneys for Sullivan County declined to comment after the hearing.
County filings detail March decision
The hearing came as a new round of court filings provided the most detailed account yet of what happened during the March 26 executive session.
Potosek said in a sworn affidavit that Infinite Care had told him in early 2026 that it would not continue pursuing the Certificate of Need required for its continued involvement at the facility.
He said he presented legislators with three options: continue operating the Care Center as a county-run facility, find another company to pursue a CON, or close it.
Potosek said legislators voted 5-3, with one member absent, to direct him to begin the closure process by submitting a plan to DOH.
According to a March 26 document prepared by Legislature Clerk AnnMarie Martin and later filed with the court, Nadia Rajsz, Nicholas Salomone, Luis Alvarez, Joseph Perrello and Amanda Ward voted yes. Matt McPhillips, Brian McPhillips and Catherine Scott voted no. Terry Blosser-Bernardo was absent.
The document states that the Legislature directed Potosek to “commence the closure process” and is headed “CONFIDENTIAL NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL.”
Scott had previously said Alvarez voted against closure, while Alvarez later said he could not remember how he voted.
The petitioners now dispute whether Alvarez understood the March vote as a vote on closure. In a filing submitted before Monday’s hearing, Family Council Chairman Lou Setren said Alvarez told him he believed he was voting to call for a vote, rather than voting on the merits of whether to close the facility. Setren also said Scott and Matt McPhillips told him they did not understand the action as a final vote to close.
Alvarez attended Monday’s hearing but declined to discuss the March meeting with the Democrat, saying he could potentially be called as a witness as the case continues.
Potosek, meanwhile, characterized the March action as authorization to begin the state closure process rather than the final legal determination to close the facility because DOH approval was still required.
The county argues in its memorandum of law that the binding legislative action occurred publicly Aug. 20, when legislators approved Care Center-related resolutions as part of a larger block of measures. The three Care Center items authorized a retention incentive program, abolished identified positions and modified the county longevity program.
Sussman disputed that characterization in court, arguing the August resolutions dealt with employees after the closure had already been announced rather than deciding whether the facility should close.
Vote record raises FOIL questions
The March vote document also raises questions about an earlier Freedom of Information Law response.
On Aug. 25, County FOIL Officer RoseMarie Savaglio-Chous certified that she had conducted a “due diligence search” for records of “all official actions/votes during executive sessions” between Feb. 1 and April 30 and that there were “no records responsive” to the request.
Potosek now says Martin memorialized the March 26 vote that same day. He said the document had been marked confidential but that its confidentiality became moot once DOH approved the closure plan.
DOH approved the plan Aug. 13, 12 days before the county issued the no-records certification.
The county has not yet publicly explained why the March 26 document was not identified in the August search.
State details closure timeline
A sworn filing from Stephanie E. Paton, director of DOH’s Division of Nursing Home and ICF/IID Surveillance, provides the state’s account of the closure process.
Paton said Sullivan County verbally notified DOH of its intent to close the Care Center on March 26. Written notice and an initial closure plan followed March 27 with an Oct. 1 target closure date. A final version was submitted May 29, and DOH approved it Aug. 13.
That provided the state substantially more than the required 90 days’ notice before the proposed closure date.
Paton also made clear that the decision to pursue closure came from Sullivan County.
“DOH did not require or direct Sullivan County to close the Facility,” she wrote.
Potosek said DOH representatives had “consistently advised” the county that closure information could not be disclosed publicly before approval, including before the March 26 vote.
Paton’s affidavit, however, does not identify a specific communication before March 26 directing the Legislature to keep its underlying deliberation or vote confidential. That distinction became a central issue in Bryant’s questioning Monday.
Workers and residents
The county also presented evidence that it has been working to place displaced Care Center employees in other county positions.
The Teamsters Local 445 contract requires the county to make “reasonable efforts” to place workers displaced by staff reductions in other county departments in positions for which they are qualified.
County Communications Director Dan Hust told the Democrat Monday that 12 Care Center employees had accepted other employment within county government.
Human Resources Commissioner Julie Diescher said in a sworn affidavit that she personally met with employees about their employment options. She said two of the four employee petitioners intended to retire, one had accepted a position at Valley View Center in Orange County and another was considering other employment.
The county and DOH argued that stopping the closure after most residents had already moved could create its own problems.
Paton said about 75 percent of the residents present when the final closure plan was submitted had been discharged by Sept. 16. Eight remaining residents had transfers underway when Bryant issued the temporary restraining order.
DOH argued that delaying planned transfers could increase confusion and stress for residents and interfere with placements already arranged.
Petitioner Janet Mentnech transferred to Valley View Center in Goshen on Sept. 10. Her discharge paperwork lists the Care Center’s closure as the reason for the transfer. The box indicating the transfer was requested by the resident or legal representative is not checked.
Her sister, petitioner Bonnie Lewis, said Mentnech was initially traumatized and grieving after the move but has slowly begun adjusting to her new surroundings. Lewis said a meeting to review her sister’s care plan still had not occurred.
“I’m thankful the judge ruled as he did,” Lewis said outside the courtroom.
Lewis has also said in a sworn affidavit that her sister felt rushed during the relocation process and would prefer to return to the Care Center because it is closer to her family.
County Attorney Robert Freehill declined comment following Monday’s hearing.
The administrative record is scheduled to be filed in early October, followed by additional briefs on motions to dismiss from the county and state. The motions are expected to return before Bryant Oct. 19.