Trending
Dunkirk's assessor has sued the city over its April 1 denial of a cash buyout on her health insurance.
Erica Munson filed an Article 78 proceeding in state Supreme Court on July 24. Under state law, Article 78 cases allow citizens to sue governments over decisions that were allegedly made improperly.
The court filing by Munson alleges that "the determination should be annulled because it was made in violation of lawful procedure, is affected by an error of law, and is arbitrary and capricious."
Munson alleges she took a payout every year since starting as city assessor in 2021- until a monthly payment was denied in January 2025. That decision was reversed the next month and Munson got the payments for the rest of 2025.
However, she was notified Jan. 28 her payments would be withheld this year. The Common Council subsequently considered a local law that would have halted the cash payout option for full-time elected city officials. The council wound up postponing consideration of the law indefinitely March 10.
Munson's filing states that on March 23, Councilman-at- large Nick Weiser wrote her an email where he saw no basis for denying her payout. Nevertheless, city-contracted attorney Elliot Raimondo told her via letter on April Fools Day that her payout was denied.
Raimondo stated that "clear evidence shows that you are participating in the city health insurance plan and receiving benefits from such." He went on to write that if she left the insurance plan, she would get a buyout -- and "any opinion contrary to such would be a clear example of double dipping perpetrated against the city and her taxpayers."
The communications from Raimondo and Weiser are both attached to Munson's filing.
Complicating matters is the fact that Munson's husband is himself a city employee, and she is his dependent on the city's plan. "Petitioners' entitlement to a cash payout... arises from her own eligibility for coverage as an elected official -- a status distinct from her separate enrollment as a dependent under her husband's employment-based coverage," Munson's filing claims.
The lawsuit alleges that a 1992 local law "conditions the cash payout on an elected official's eligibility to receive insurance coverage by virtue of holding elected office, not on the absence of any other coverage available to her. Nothing in the text of (the 1992 law) disqualifies an elected official from electing the cash payout merely because she is separately covered as a dependent under a different health insurance plan."
Among causes of action for restoring Munson's payout, the filing claims an "error of law" was made, along with "violation of lawful procedure." It is also alleged that the city's determination to deny the payout was "arbitrary and capricious."
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Joseph Cailmeri of Jamestown law firm Wright Cailmeri, asks that the determination be set aside on those grounds. It seeks insurance payouts dating back to January. As an alternative, the lawsuit suggests the state Supreme Court can file a writ of mandamus compelling the city to process Munson's payout election.
Munson was critical of the Common Council's stillborn move in March to change the insurance buyout law for elected officials -- which was intended to replace the 1992 law. Munson's suit also wants the court to affirm that, according to the city's own charter, council is supposed to vote on changes to elected officials' compensation and benefits in a June meeting prior to the year the changes would take effect.