At a Glance: What the Records Show
- $69,400 Water Fund advance: Bank statements document the movement of funds. On May 18, the Town Board unanimously approved a repayment arrangement with interest, on a motion by Councilmember Bryan LoRusso. Whether the original advance was properly authorized remains disputed.
- $70,636 Fire Fund allegation: The attached bank notice documents an insufficient-funds incident; it does not independently demonstrate the General Fund transfer alleged in the lawsuit.
- $584.92 payroll deduction: The employee signed an authorization, but whether the collection followed applicable union and retirement procedures remains unresolved.
- Town meetings and financial reporting: Board minutes document concerns about procedures and incomplete accounting work, alongside efforts to address problems. They do not establish every alleged violation.
- The lawsuit: Filed August 14, 2026, before the November 3 supervisor election. The records reviewed do not include the Town’s formal court response or a judicial ruling.
The central question: Which problems have been corrected, which remain unresolved, and what additional remedies is the lawsuit seeking?
This summary is based on the August 2026 court filings and supporting exhibits. Read the full analysis and source references below.
A review of public court filings and town meeting records shows documented financial problems, steps toward correction, and several legal questions still awaiting resolution.
When Hartwick Town Board member Bryan LoRusso filed an Article 78 proceeding against the Town of Hartwick and Supervisor Cody Moore on August 14, 2026, he challenged the handling of town finances, an employee payroll deduction, a meeting procedure, and statutory reporting duties.
But a review of the petition’s supporting documents also shows that town officials had already begun addressing several of the disputed matters. Which problems were corrected, which remain unresolved, and what the court can still decide are distinct questions.
The case is LoRusso v. Town of Hartwick et al., Otsego County Supreme Court index EF2026-798. The review below draws on the petition and Exhibits A–G filed August 14, together with public reporting and applicable law. The records reviewed do not include the Town’s formal court response or a judicial ruling; the claims have not been adjudicated in the materials available to us.
The $69,400 Water Fund Advance: A Board-Approved Repayment Plan
March bank statements filed with the petition document a $69,400 movement from the town’s General Fund to its Water Fund following two United States Department of Agriculture debt payments totaling the same amount. The Water Fund account had briefly shown a negative balance.
Moore has explained that she moved the money to avoid a missed debt payment and penalties. LoRusso argues the transfer lacked the required authorization when it occurred.
The May 18 Water Commission meeting minutes are particularly important. They record that LoRusso himself moved to accept the $69,400 loan, with repayment to the General Fund by December 2026 and interest tied to a 3.62% bank rate. The motion passed unanimously, including votes from LoRusso and Moore. The minutes describe the earlier advance as unilateral.
New York’s General Municipal Law §9-a permits qualifying temporary advances between municipal funds, but requires proper authorization, records, and timely repayment. Later approval of a repayment arrangement does not, by itself, settle whether the initial transaction followed the required process.
What remains to be checked: Was authorization required and obtained before the money moved? Was the advance properly recorded? Has the Water Fund repaid the General Fund with the required interest? The Board’s December 2026 repayment deadline has not yet passed.
The June Fire Fund Incident: A Bank Notice, but Not Proof of a Transfer
LoRusso’s petition also alleges a $70,636 transfer from the General Fund to the Fire Fund without proper authorization.
The cited bank exhibit shows that the Fire Fund had two checks paid—one for $70,636 and another for $126—and an account balance of negative $408.82 afterward. This documents an insufficient-funds event. It does not, on its own, document a $70,636 transfer from the General Fund.
In correspondence included with the exhibit, Moore noted that the bank paid the checks rather than returning them. LoRusso emphasized that the account nonetheless lacked sufficient funds. Those statements address different features of the same bank notice.
What remains to be checked: The Fire Fund and General Fund statements for the relevant period, associated ledger entries, any transfer or corrective transaction, and evidence of bank charges or other financial consequences.
The Retirement Deduction: Written Consent and a Procedural Dispute
The petition challenges a $584.92 payroll deduction intended to collect previously missed retirement contributions from a town employee. An exhibit includes payroll material and an employee-signed authorization for the amount. That confirms a documented deduction and agreement, but does not establish the circumstances in which the agreement was obtained.
LoRusso alleges the collection process was improper and lacked union involvement. AllOtsego reported that a July 2 outside legal opinion found procedural deficiencies and recommended involving the employee’s union and Town Board. Moore said the retirement-contribution problem arose during earlier employee onboarding and questioned why the opinion was issued without interviewing her.
The initial court exhibits do not include the outside legal opinion, the collective-bargaining agreement, or documentation establishing that a reimbursement or revised repayment arrangement was completed.
What remains to be checked: The original opinion, the employee’s and union’s accounts, any repayment or reimbursement, and which retirement-system and labor procedures applied. The signed consent does not alone resolve those questions.
The May Meeting: What Happened After Adjournment?
LoRusso alleges that after the May 11 Town Board meeting ended, Moore, two councilmembers, and the town attorney continued discussing public business without complying with New York’s Open Meetings Law.
Minutes from a May 18 meeting record a councilmember’s apology concerning an incident at the prior meeting and mention the town attorney’s guidance. The entry is not sufficiently specific to establish exactly what was discussed after adjournment, whether town expenditures were approved, or whether the discussion involved confidential legal advice.
New York’s Open Meetings Law generally requires qualifying meetings of a public body to be open, with statutory exceptions. Whether the alleged discussion met the legal definition of a meeting—and whether an exception applies—remains unresolved on the documents reviewed.
What remains to be checked: The full meeting recording, the participants’ accounts, and any public action or expenditure arising from the alleged discussion.
Financial Reporting: An Ongoing Issue Beyond Individual Transactions
April and May Town Board minutes document incomplete financial work, concerns about negative budget lines, and frustration over information available for Board oversight. Moore described efforts involving accountants and the State Comptroller, including work related to closing out 2025 finances.
Those minutes establish that reporting and reconciliation were being discussed and worked on. They do not establish when every required report was completed, whether each statutory deadline was met, or which problems originated before or after Moore took office on January 1, 2026.
What remains to be checked: Monthly supervisor reports, annual financial filings, corrective-action records, audit findings, and dates of submission.
Why the Lawsuit Is Being Discussed During an Election
The lawsuit was filed August 14, ahead of Hartwick’s November 3 supervisor election. In public statements reported by AllOtsego, LoRusso described the proceeding as an effort to enforce oversight and transparency; Moore questioned the timing of criticism during election season and emphasized work to correct older accounting problems.
The timing alone cannot establish why the suit was filed. Article 78 and Open Meetings Law challenges may also face short legal filing deadlines. Separately, an August 17 court notice scheduled the matter for October 30 at 4:30 p.m., ‘on submission’—a court-scheduled paper submission, not necessarily an in-person hearing.
Sources: AllOtsego’s September 17 lawsuit report and September 24 report on statements by both officials.
What Would Establish That a Problem Was Resolved?
Acknowledging an error, approving a corrective action, and completing the correction are not the same thing. In this case, the available records document a repayment plan for the Water Fund, a bank notice involving the Fire Fund, a payroll deduction with a signed authorization, and incomplete financial reporting. They do not establish that every subsequent correction was completed or that every challenged action complied with the law.
The questions for the public record are concrete: What action did the Board approve? Was it carried out? What supporting documents exist? And what specific relief is still being requested from the court?
Questions That Remain Unanswered
The case concerns documented accounting and procedural disputes, but the public record does not yet establish which corrective measures were completed, which additional steps each official sought, or why the parties disagreed about the need for litigation. The following are reporting questions, not findings of misconduct or assertions about anyone’s motives.
Questions for Councilmember Bryan LoRusso
- What specific corrective actions did you ask the Town Board or supervisor to take before filing the August 14 lawsuit?
- Which requests had been denied or remained unresolved when you filed?
- On May 18, you moved to accept the $69,400 Water Fund advance and to establish repayment terms. What additional remedy were you seeking when you subsequently challenged that transaction in court?
- Before filing suit, did you consider additional Board action, independent legal advice, or an audit? If so, what was the result?
- What concrete outcome are you asking the court to provide that has not already been addressed through Town Board action?
Questions for Supervisor Cody Moore and the Town Board
- Which accounting deficiencies did the administration identify on taking office in January 2026, and what records establish when they originated?
- Which corrective actions had been completed by August 14, and which remained outstanding?
- What changes, if any, have been made to procedures for interfund advances, payroll deductions, and monthly financial reporting?
- Has the $69,400 Water Fund advance been repaid, or is repayment still scheduled for December 2026? What documentation shows its status?
- What legal expenses has the town incurred defending the proceeding, and what portion, if any, is covered by insurance?
The Larger Public-Interest Question
Public officials are responsible for complying with the law and correcting administrative mistakes. Correcting a mistake does not necessarily resolve an earlier legal violation; likewise, an allegation of a procedural violation does not establish that every requested remedy is warranted. Readers should be able to see which problems remain, what actions have been taken, and what evidence supports each account.
Hartwick Election Facts invites documented responses from LoRusso, Moore, and the Town Board, and will update the article as verified information becomes available. A public official need not necessarily exhaust internal options before bringing an Open Meetings Law challenge; the questions above seek to understand the sequence of events, not to suggest that an internal appeal was legally required.
How to Read the Source Documents
- Court case: LoRusso v. Town of Hartwick, index EF2026-798. New York Courts explains how to use NYSCEF guest search to examine public filings.
- Initial petition and exhibits: NYSCEF Document Nos. 1–8, filed August 14, 2026. Exhibit A contains May 11 minutes; Exhibit B, payroll records; Exhibit C, May 18 minutes; Exhibits D and E, March bank statements; Exhibit F, April 13 minutes; and Exhibit G, the Fire Fund bank notice and correspondence.
- Town records: Hartwick Town Board meeting minutes archive.
- Independent reporting: AllOtsego’s lawsuit coverage and reporting on the payroll opinion and financial disputes.
Editor’s note: This article evaluates documents and attributed statements; it does not determine legal liability. The case remains disputed. Hartwick Election Facts welcomes relevant public records and corrections at corrections@hartwickelectionfacts.org. We will update this report when material new filings or records are verified. Hartwick Election Facts is independent of the Town government and any candidate’s campaign.
