Log in Subscribe

Bethel approves $13,000 settlement in Justice Court cases

Sean Kuhn
Posted 9/17/26

BETHEL — The Bethel Town Board has authorized a $13,000 settlement ending two state Supreme Court cases brought against town Justice Court employees.

The board unanimously approved the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Bethel approves $13,000 settlement in Justice Court cases

Posted

BETHEL — The Bethel Town Board has authorized a $13,000 settlement ending two state Supreme Court cases brought against town Justice Court employees.

The board unanimously approved the settlement September 9 for cases filed under Sullivan County index numbers 2025-2410 and 2025-2411.

The payment represents an agreed estimate of the petitioner’s legal expenses. The cases will be discontinued with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be brought again, and without additional court costs.

The litigation grew out of a landlord-tenant matter previously heard in Bethel Justice Court. The subsequent Supreme Court cases named the Town of Bethel Justice Court, Court Clerk Mary Prince and Justices Cindy Barber and Kevin Rhyne as defendants.

The town authorized separate attorneys for the officials in August because conflicts prevented one attorney from representing all of them. Prince’s attorney was approved at $495 per hour, while Barber’s attorney was approved at $400 per hour. Town Attorney Martin Miller represented Rhyne at his regular rate.

Supervisor Daniel Sturm previously said the town sought coverage through its insurance carrier but was denied.

The $13,000 settlement does not include the town’s cost of defending its employees.

During public comment, resident Raymond Gawlak asked whether the town had received the attorneys’ bills and whether those costs could equal the settlement itself.

Sturm said the bills had not yet arrived but acknowledged that the representation would cost the town money.

“We have not gotten a bill yet, but I do anticipate it’s going to cost money, being the Supreme Court,” Sturm said.

The town initially paid its regular attorney to represent the defendants, Sturm said, but a judge found that the attorney could not represent both the town and the individual employees. He said that money was returned to the town.

Despite the additional legal expenses, Sturm defended the settlement.

“I think it’s the right move,” he said.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here