KINGSTON — Sullivan County and County Manager Joshua Potosek were found in criminal contempt of court Thursday, October 29, for violating a court order suspending the closure of the Care Center at Sunset Lake, the county-owned nursing home in Liberty.

Sentencing proceedings are scheduled for November 24 at 11:30 a.m. in Kingston. Under New York Law, criminal contempt is generally punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.

State Supreme Court Justice Kevin R. Bryant issued the finding following an evidentiary hearing at the Ulster County Courthouse in Kingston. The proceedings concerned resident transfers and staffing reductions that continued after the court ordered the county to temporarily halt implementation of its plan to close the facility.

The contempt motion targeted Sullivan County and Potosek because the Legislature placed responsibility for implementing the closure under Potosek’s authority, although Care Center administrators handled the transfers.

Attorney Michael Sussman, who is representing former residents, their family and staff, said that Judge Bryant found that county officials knowingly continued transferring residents without adequately informing them that the court had suspended the closure and that they could remain at the facility.

“The rule of law protects all of us and its erosion harms each of us,” Sussman said in a press release. “A party which objects to a court’s ruling can appeal, but it cannot snub its nose at the court order without seriously compromising the rule of law.”

Sullivan County announced plans to close the Care Center on August 19, citing mounting operating costs, financial losses and the failure of an earlier effort to transfer operations to a private company. The closure was originally scheduled for October 1, following state Department of Health approval on August 13.

The county declined to comment on this story.

Sussman said eight witnesses testified during the hearing, seven called by the petitioners. According to his statement, 27 residents were transferred between September 17 and October 8, leaving the facility empty. The workforce was also reduced by approximately half during that period, although the injunction prohibited the county from laying off employees.

The case centers on a September 16 temporary restraining order, subsequently continued following a September 21 preliminary injunction hearing, that prohibited the county and its agents from further implementing the closure plan, including causing residents to be transferred or relocated.

In an October 22 filing opposing the criminal contempt motion, Deputy County Attorney Khalid Bashjawish acknowledged that the county knew of the order but disputed that officials had willfully disobeyed it.

The county maintained that the disputed transfers were authorized by residents or their representatives, rather than caused by county officials in violation of the injunction. It submitted transfer acknowledgments, discharge notices and care records to support its defense.

A court document states that the Care Center did not initiate or direct the transfer as part of its closure process. An accompanying discharge notice, however, identifies the facility’s discontinuation of operations under its state-approved closure plan as the reason for discharge.

Similar closure-related language appears in other discharge records submitted by the county.

While the county maintained that it was accommodating voluntary requests, the petitioners argued that residents were being moved in furtherance of the closure plan despite the court’s order.

In a sworn affidavit, former Care Center admissions director Jacquelyn Oakley alleged that staff and residents were not informed of the injunction and that residents continued accepting placements without knowing the court had suspended the closure.

Former senior account clerk Brittney Siegel alleged that 11 residents were transferred September 18 and that then-Administrator Kayshawn Macharie instructed employees not to discuss the court proceedings with residents or their families.

The county disputed those allegations. Deputy Administrator Bobbi-Ann Kanoff said in a sworn affidavit that three residents transferred voluntarily that day. She also stated that Macharie informed department heads of the injunction at a September 17 meeting.

According to Sussman, Bryant concluded that the county continued pressuring residents to leave rather than informing them of the protection provided by the court’s order.

The underlying lawsuit challenges the county’s decision to close the Care Center following a March 26 executive session of the Sullivan County Legislature.

In a decision filed September 23, Bryant found that the petitioners had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Open Meetings Law claims and continued the injunction pending further proceedings.

The Legislature subsequently voted 5-4 on October 1 to authorize closure and direct Potosek to seek proposals from a potential replacement operator. County attorneys argued that the public vote remedied any earlier procedural violations.

The criminal contempt finding concerns compliance with Bryant’s injunction and does not, by itself, resolve the underlying challenge to the closure decision.