KINGSTON, NY — A New York Supreme Court justice has granted an injunction against the closing of the Adult Care Center at Sunset Lake until further notice at a hearing held on Monday, September 21 in Kingston. Sullivan County, the owner of the ACC, must stop the closure plan for the facility while a lawsuit brought by a former resident of the facility, family members and employees of the facility plays out in the courts.

State Supreme Court Justice Kevin R. Bryant granted this preliminary injunction after issuing a temporary restraining order against the county on Wednesday, September 16. Bryant’s court saw the case after five justices in Sullivan County recused themselves, with court documents revealing that one justice recused themself because they had family in the facility.

Civil rights lawyer Michael Sussman is representing the petitioners. Sussman previously successfully represented a group of residents and employees that sued Orange County after that county tried to sell its county-run nursing home, Valley View Center. At a press conference held on Thursday, September 17, Sussman said the process by which the county closed the ACC was highly suspect.

“I know the importance of this facility to families in this county, to the people who need rehabilitation services in this county,” Sussman said. “To think that a decision like this would be made literally five or six months before its announcement, that a decision like this would be made in a manner which lacks any transparency after years of public discussion about the very subject… is honestly a travesty of government.”

“People are going to have to be accountable for the decision and the way the decision was made,” Sussman said.

A question of process

The lawsuit is centered around these questions about the process of the closure and the manner in which it took place. The legislature voted in a 5-3 vote to close the ACC in an executive session on March 26, 2026. Since then, outrage and confusion over how the vote took place have been common.

Confusion concerning the process has even reached some legislators. Legislator Terry Blosser-Bernardo was absent from the vote, and claims that she wasn’t informed until the information was made public. Vice-chair of the legislature Luis Alvarez, an outspoken proponent of the facility, voted to close it, official documents released as part of the litigation reveal.

“It’s very hard to explain what really happened,” Alvarez said in an interview with the River Reporter after the closure was announced. “We all agreed on closing it. I don’t know how I agreed with it, but I did.” 

Since the closure was announced, Alvarez has continued to speak out in support of the ACC, its residents and its workers. Sussman said that this confusion speaks for itself.

“Alvarez is one of the fiercest, if not the fiercest, advocates for the facility,” Sussman said. “There’s no way in the world Luis Alvarez would have ever voted in his right mind to close the facility, and he’s made that very clear. So there obviously was some confusion.”

Sussman said that the legislature should reapproach the idea and invite people to help make the decision, instead of making the decision in executive session with no public input. “Defer the decision, invite back the people. Invite back the staff, and let’s see what we can do,” Sussman said.

Sussman also said that from his observations, he didn’t see the public pressure to close the facility, only public pressure to keep it open.

“This is an issue about what the people in your community want and need,” Sussman said. “They should try to honor the will of the community and make what the community wants to happen in this case happen.”

Bonnie Lewis, one of the petitioners and the sister of a former ACC resident who was transferred as part of the facility’s closure, said she finds the process and the way the vote was carried out particularly bothersome.

“They don’t seem to care. They’re not expressing any regret or remorse, and that they just did it so impromptu in March, without feedback,” Lewis said. “Then not voting publicly. Voting in an executive session, [with] questionable results and no meeting minutes.”

“This is democracy, and it should be open and transparent,” Lewis said. “Let’s do it correctly and give the public a chance to express their thoughts and desires.”

Lewis also said that if the county’s primary concern was budgetary, that presents even more of a reason to include the public.

“The taxpayers have a voice,” Lewis said. “I don’t mind… [a tax] increase a little bit to help pay to care for the vulnerable in the nursing home. That’s what we do… we shouldn’t be regressing and losing a facility that we’ve had since 1978.”

The restraining order

Sussman also addressed the temporary restraining order that was placed on the county. Sussman noted that members of the legislature seemed to be unaware of the order. 

During a public comment period at the Sullivan County Legislature’s regular meeting on Thursday, September 17, a member of the public asked a question about the order. 

“I’m not aware of it,” legislature chair Nadia Rajsz said.

County attorney Robert H. Freehill then interjected, saying “I advise the legislators and the chair not to comment any further on any matters that are in litigation as this is.”

“It appeared to me that the county legislative chair was unaware of that order,” Sussman said after the meeting. “I don’t know whether it was a genuine reaction or not, but that’s what it looked like.” 

Lewis was happy to hear that the temporary restraining order was put in place. She hopes that this would stop the “hurry” to transfer patients out of the facility.

“We all were getting a sense they were twisting the arms of many of the residents to hurry, get out,” Lewis said. “If they closed, we didn’t have much hope that we’d get it back open.”

The county was reached for comment, but Sullivan County’s director of communications, Dan Hust, said the county could not comment on the pending litigation.