Log in Subscribe

Monticello Village Attorney opens up on DA controversy

Vincent Kurzrock
Posted 9/16/25

MONTICELLO — Village Attorney Michael Sussman addressed the Monticello Village Board during its recent meeting, speaking out against recent actions by Sullivan County District Attorney (DA) …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Monticello Village Attorney opens up on DA controversy

Posted

MONTICELLO — Village Attorney Michael Sussman addressed the Monticello Village Board during its recent meeting, speaking out against recent actions by Sullivan County District Attorney (DA) Brian Conaty that Sussman says interfere with the village’s ability to enforce its own building, zoning and traffic laws.

Sussman said there has been “a great deal of misinformation, which is being circulated intentionally, and perhaps maliciously,” and he emphasized that neither he nor the village officials have acted improperly.

As previously reported in the Democrat, Conaty took over authority of prosecuting minor infractions in the village to the DA’s office.

Sussman outlined his own legal background, noting he graduated Harvard Law School with honors and served in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. He later worked as Assistant General Counsel for the National Office of the NAACP. Over the next decades, he represented thousands of clients in civil rights cases nationwide, including matters involving racial segregation and discrimination.

In 2022, after the election of a new Village board, Sussman agreed to serve as Monticello’s special counsel. “I wanted to help turn the village around to provide sound counsel to its leaders and enforce its laws,” he said, noting he has prosecuted building and zoning cases, as well as vehicle and traffic violations.

Sussman said he and the board have been performing these duties “honorably and properly,” and criticized the district attorney for questioning the integrity of village officials. “To question my integrity is beyond the breach, to question the integrity of any of you without any facts is beyond the breach,” he said.

A key point of contention involves the village’s hiring of a constable to assist with law enforcement functions. Sussman said there is no legal barrier to the individual’s service, noting the constable also serves in another nearby municipality without objection from the district attorney. He said claims that the individual is “currently being prosecuted” are false. According to Sussman, a previous case against the constable was dismissed by Justice Stephan Schick more than a year ago, and no active appeal exists.

Sussman also addressed repeated violations of village ordinances by certain property owners. He noted that fines and prosecutions have been levied successfully, and questioned the district attorney’s sudden involvement. “If the word is out contrary to what has been going on that you can get away with whatever you want with no consequence, then who is going to follow the village code when it is opportune for them not to?” he said.

Sussman criticized public statements he says unfairly question village integrity. 

“Public life cannot descend into factlessness without immoral pedestal, and without any regard for the truth,” Sussman stressed. He encouraged the community to seek accurate information and emphasized that the village has consistently enforced its laws.

The district attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment on Sussman’s statements or the ongoing enforcement matters.

Sussman said the board has every right to maintain enforcement authority within the village. He urged residents to consider the facts and expressed frustration over broad statements from the district attorney that he described as “baseless.”

Trustee Gordon Jenkins commented that he is “sickened” by what has been going on and that it “kind of makes you bitter about what’s happening”.

“We try our best to sit here and do the best we can for this community,” explained Jenkins. “The only thing we’re trying to do is help this community.”

He also stressed that there was nothing in it for any of the board members in this [Monticello] community and that they want to make it better for everyone.

“We want to leave a legacy when we’re dead and gone to have a better Village,” Jenkins reasoned. “I appreciate [Sussman’s remarks], but it saddens me.”

Sussman responded that good people should stay involved. He added that vacating the arena would leave it open to “people who are making false statements”.

“It’s important to speak out and fight back and not quiver in the face of nonsense,” noted Sussman.

Comments

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