Ruling backs Munson in city benefits battle
Trending
A court has ruled in favor of Dunkirk City Assessor Erica Munson in her benefits battle with the city.
Munson sued Dunkirk over its April 1 denial of a cash buyout on her health insurance. State Supreme Court judge Grace Hanlon set aside that denial Monday as "arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, and made in violation of lawful procedure."
Hanlon directed City Hall to process Munson's payout. The judge also declared that a 1992 city law allows an eligible elected official to get cash in lieu of insurance coverage, regardless of whether the official is separately covered as a dependent on a different insurance plan. Munson's husband is a city employee, and she is a dependent on his insurance plan.
Hanlon ruled the city must follow its charter in making changes to elected officials' compensation in the June before the term where the alterations would begin. Munson was also awarded back insurance payouts, and costs of the court proceeding.
Munson stated 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 original filing stated 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.
In her ruling, Hanlon went on to state Dunkirk would have spent $7,719 more in 2024 if Munson had accepted her insurance than taken a buyout.
Hanlon wrote: "By the petitioner opting out of the insurance plan, it actually saves the city money -- contrary to what the respondents have said in their paperwork and in open court, denying the opt out for the petitioner would not have saved the financially distressed city money, it would in fact cost the city additional money."
She added later on: "The petitioner clearly received the compensation for the buyout for insurance that was offered by the city, and received the same for five years prior to it being unilaterally terminated by the city attorney and mayor (Kate Wdowiasz). Even if the city followed the proper channels to modify or terminate this compensation, they would only be able to do so in June of an election year."
Hanlon wrote that the June requirement makes sense because "the compensation for an elected position, especially a full-time elected position, surely plays into the formula as to whether one wishes to run for that elected office. Changing the compensation after the person is elected would be completely unjust to the elected official, and could create chaos in a municipality, with elected officials resigning shortly after being elected because their compensation is being decreased."
Hanlon suggested that without the time requirement for compensation changes, the mayor and/or the Common Council could weaponize pay cuts against officials who spoke out against them. Munson has been highly critical of Wdowiasz's mayorship, at one point pushing for a no-confidence vote by council.
As she wound down her 11-page ruling, Hanlon flatly stated that "the city of Dunkirk failed to follow their own procedures in attempting to modify the petitioner's compensation package and erred in attempting to interpret a local law that was unambiguous."