Uneasiness Unresolved - Arguments Heard in Jewett Lawsuit

CATSKILL - No decisions were made when Greene County Supreme Court proceedings opened on a lawsuit filed against the town of Jewett by local town clerk Maya Carl and highway superintendent Robert Mallory.

Judge Denise Hartman, at the July 7 procedure, requested supplemental submissions from attorneys on behalf of all parties by July 15.

Those documents will determine whether an evidentiary hearing must take place that would involve testimony on accusations made by Carl and Mallory, in June, of “abuse of power” by some town officials.

Carl and Mallory further allege that Security and Credit Card policies approved by the town board, in May, are “punitive, arbitrary (and) capricious,” asking the court to annul them as “procedurally and substantively defective.”

Attorney James Peluso, representing the town, denies the claims contained in the Article 78 Petition and Complaint filed by Carl and Mallory.

“Although not pled in the Petition and Complaint, [Carl’s and Mallory’s] bald, conclusory allegation that the Policies were adopted as part of a conspiracy by the Town Board to retaliate against [Carl and Mallory] is speculative, lacks any competent proof, is belied by the record, and demonstrates a pattern of lawfare by [Carl and Mallory] in filing baseless charges against [the town],” Peluso stated.

Town board members passed the two policies amid what law enforcement officials confirm is “an ongoing investigation” linked to a search warrant executed by the Greene County Sheriff’s Office on July 2, 2025, at the Jewett municipal building.

A press release issued at the time by sheriffs’ captain Joel Rowell said the sweep was prompted by, “allegations of potentially fraudulent activity.”

Rowell said, “electronic devices, paper files and business records” were seized. No further details have been released.

However, in January, 2026, Carl and Mallory initiated a separate, pending lawsuit against the town that is tied directly to the search warrant.

It is revealed in that original Notice of Claim and a followup Notice of Claim in March, 2026, that Carl and Mallory exposed alleged in-house irregularities to police in the spring of 2025, leading to the raid.

Those alleged circumstances surround the classification of a building project undertaken by Jewett planning board chairwoman, Barbara Schobel, and the associated permitting, documentation, etc.

********

Attorney Dana Salazar, representing Carl and Mallory, states that her clients, since the police visit, have been subjected to, “harassment and adverse employment action…by the Town Board and the Town of Jewett as a result of [their] report of alleged criminal activity.”

The alleged workplace harassment is continuing through the Security and Credit Card policies, which, if allowed to stand, prevent Carl and Mallory from “performing the duties they were elected to fulfill,” Salazar states.

Peluso, in his response, states that Carl and Mallory “argue that said policies violate state law and town law and have no sound basis.

“Specifically, [Carl and Mallory] argue that the legislative policies of the Town Board prevent [them] from performing their duties as elected town officials, and that the policies are “arbitrary and capricious,” Peluso states.

Carl’s and Mallory’s, “attempt to manufacture a justiciable controversy where none exists is a bridge too far.,” Peluso continues.

The claims “fail as a matter of law,” Peluso states. “Petitioners cannot challenge the validity or wisdom of a town legislative act, policy, rule, regulation, or law in an Article 78 proceeding.

“Even if an Article 78 challenge was available, the enactment of each Policy was expressly within the Town Board’s enumerated statutory powers to manage, control, and protect town property and finances,” he stated

“The Board’s decision to adopt each Policy was rational, supported by

the record, made in accordance with governing law, and entitled to substantial deference,” Peluso states.

“Each Policy applies equally to all Town elected officials and personnel and does not alter, impinge or prevent [Carl and Mallory] from performing their job duties,” Peluso states.

********

Salazar, in her court comments to Judge Hartman, said, “there is still an active criminal investigation involving potential altering of town records by at least one person in charge of the town.

“Since that [police] investigation, there has been a concerted effort from people under investigation to have access to town records that are the responsibility of the town clerk,” Salazar said.

“The town supervisor took in upon himself to change all the locks at the municipal building and highway garage,” Salazar continued.

“The town clerk objected to losing control of town records. As a result of her objections, the town clerk declined” to accept the conditions of the two policies, as did Mallory, Salazar said.

Peluso, in his response to the lawsuit states, “palpably, [Carl’s and Mallory’s] claims boil down to a mere disagreement with the wisdom of the

Town Board’s management choices over town property and fiscal policy.

“That is not enough. [Carl and Mallory] fail to show any illegality, lack of rational basis, or procedural error of law,” Peluso states.

“The Court should dismiss the Petition and Complaint in its entirety, and award attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements to the [town],” Peluso states.

Town supervisor Greg Kroyer, in an accompanying affidavit states that Carl and Mallory, “have most of their facts wrong or omit material information.

“The adoption of the Security Policy was not an arbitrary, personal act directed against [Carl and Mallory],” Kroyer states. 

“The decision to change locks and proceed with a key-control system was made as part of a security upgrade for Town facilities that had the full support of the Security Committee, myself as Town Supervisor and Building Custodian, and the unanimous vote of the Town Board,” Kroyer states.

“Similarly, the Credit Card Policy was formally adopted to avoid any confusion over who was authorized to make credit card purchases, and to ensure accountability and prevent misuse,” Kroyer states.

Judge Hartman said she would reserve decision, awaiting the supplemental submissions, hoping the “issue can be worked out,” noting the court does, “not get in the business of micromanaging towns.”