County to appeal case over ethics charges

A state judge has ruled that a Putnam legislator accused of an ethics violation by the county attorney can choose her defense attorney instead of using one on the Law Department's list of vendors.

Judge Victor Grossman, in a Jan. 22 ruling, sided with Toni Addonizio in the lawsuit she filed in June against County Attorney Compton Spain and Putnam County. Addonizio, who represents Kent in the Legislature, is defending herself against an ethics complaint filed by Spain regarding her son-in-law's attempted purchase of a county-owned property.

Grossman found that because Spain filed the complaint, he is "in a patently adversarial posture" to the legislator and cannot "be permitted to designate counsel" for Addonizio's county-funded defense without her permission.

He denied Addonizio's request that the county pay her lawsuit's legal costs. He also ordered two exhibits and a paragraph in a third sealed at the Law Department's request but denied its request to seal other documents.

On the day of Grossman's ruling, Spain and the county notified the court that they would be appealing the judge's decision and his denial to seal some records.

The appeal prolongs the fight over Addonizio's request for a county-funded attorney — based on a state law, adopted by Putnam, that requires it to defend employees in federal and state civil cases for "any alleged act or omission" occurring while they are working.

Municipalities are exempt from the requirement if they are the ones bringing the case against an employee. The law also entitles an employee to choose their attorney if the chief legal officer of a municipality, such as a county attorney, or a judge determines that a conflict of interest exists.

In response to Addonizio's request, the Law Department said its insurer concluded that she was ineligible for legal assistance but, "after careful review," it selected one of the firms from its list of contractors — Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux — to represent her. The department also said that Addonizio could pay out-of-pocket for an attorney who is not on its list.

"There could not be a more patent conflict of interest than the complainant in a politicized ethics proceeding selecting the accused's attorney," said Jeffrey Gasbarro, who represented Addonizio in the lawsuit.

Spain's 191-page complaint, filed with the Board of Ethics in June 2024 and forwarded to the Attorney General's Office, accuses Addonizio of failing to disclose that her son-in-law, Byron Voutsinas, was the buyer initially agreeing to purchase a county-owned property at 34 Gleneida Ave. in Carmel.

According to Spain, Voutsinas sought to use Addonizio's influence with the Legislature to include parking spaces from a nearby county-owned lot in the sale. He claims that the agreed-upon price, $600,000, represented a "veritable windfall" from a recommended listing price of $900,000 and market studies valuing it as high as $1.2 million.

Spain's office moved to void the contract, arguing that Voutsinas failed to satisfy conditions for the sale to be finalized, including getting the Legislature's approval. After Voutsinas filed a breach-of-contract claim, Spain successfully petitioned a judge to have the contract canceled.

During a May 2024 meeting of the Legislature's Rules Committee, then chaired by Addonizio, legislators accused the Law Department of filing the petition without first getting their approval. Addonizio "spoke frequently and freely on the matter," but should have recused herself, said Spain.

The Legislature's then-counsel, Robert Firriolo, defended Addonizio in a response to Spain's complaint sent to the ethics board. He also accused Spain of failing to disclose, when asked on his employment application about criminal convictions, that he was found guilty in 1993 of criminal contempt of court.

A judge found Spain guilty under the state Judiciary Law, which does not classify the charge as a misdemeanor. Because the penalty can...