A New York court has ruled that a fire district acted within its authority in adopting policies governing access to its firehouse and rejected a challenge to the district’s refusal to approve a fire company’s nominee for chief engineer. The court also transferred a challenge to the termination of the fire company’s president to the Appellate Division for review.

The decision was handed down today by the Albany County Supreme Court in a dispute between the Schuyler Heights Fire Company, Inc. and the Schuyler Heights Fire District. The case was brought by the fire company, its former president, Elijah Jenkins, and current President Jeffrey Belschwinder.

The dispute reflects a broader conflict between members of the fire company and the district’s Board of Fire Commissioners over the respective authority of the separately incorporated volunteer fire company and the fire district, a political subdivision of the state. Here is our earlier coverage of the case.

Jenkins became president of the Schuyler Heights Fire Company on January 1, 2025. According to the court, a dispute developed over company financial records that Jenkins claimed had not been turned over by DeAnna DiPofi, a former company treasurer who also served on the Board of Fire Commissioners.

On June 25, 2025, Jenkins hired a locksmith to gain access to a safe located in the firehouse believed to contain the financial records. The district owned the firehouse, but ownership of the safe was disputed. After the locksmith was unable to open the safe, Jenkins used the district’s Jaws of Life in an attempt to open it. The fire company subsequently installed cameras inside the firehouse.

On August 26, 2025, the Board of Fire Commissioners brought disciplinary charges against Jenkins for his actions. Jenkins responded by issuing letters purporting to suspend several company officers, including two members of the Board of Fire Commissioners. The board then amended the charges against Jenkins to include insubordination based in part on those suspensions and his continued activities as company president.

The board appointed attorney Steven C. Kasarda to serve as hearing officer under General Municipal Law § 209-l. Following a November 4, 2025 hearing, Kasarda found Jenkins guilty of the charges and recommended that he be terminated. The Board of Fire Commissioners adopted the recommendation.

The dispute also extended to the selection of a chief engineer. The fire company nominated Kenneth Keefer Sr. for the position, but the Board of Fire Commissioners rejected the nomination. The company subsequently nominated Keefer a second time.

In addition, the board adopted two policies governing use of the firehouse. A “Guests in the Firehouse” policy generally prohibited guests from the apparatus floor except during public events and certain other circumstances, and prohibited guests from attending company meetings at the firehouse without prior board approval.

A second policy prohibited use of the firehouse lounge for any “event or function where credit is given, or if anyone is required or invited to attend.” The district maintained that the restriction was based on the fact that the second-floor lounge was not accessible by elevator and could not be reached by some elderly and disabled individuals.

In March, the fire company, Jenkins and Belschwinder filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the disciplinary actions and the two policies. They contended that the Board of Fire Commissioners had improperly intruded into matters involving the internal governance of the fire company.

The relationship between the company and district continued to deteriorate while the case was pending. The company eventually issued a “Formal Notice of Cease of Operation,” declaring that it was separating from operational involvement with the district and directing its members not to participate in district operations while remaining members of the company.

Acting Justice Adam W. Silverman rejected the contention that the fire company could unilaterally separate itself from the fire district. Although a volunteer fire company may be separately incorporated, the court explained that New York law places it under the control of the governmental entity responsible for providing fire protection.

Quoting prior New York case law, the court said a fire district possesses “virtually total supervision and control over all aspects of the creation and staffing of fire companies as well as over the rules and regulations governing firefighting practices and procedures.”

The court distinguished between the corporate affairs of a volunteer fire company and the operational responsibilities of a fire district. The fire company’s officers are responsible for the civil operations of the nonprofit corporation, while firefighting operations, including the roles of the fire chief and line officers, are subject to the authority of the Board of Fire Commissioners.

Applying those principles, Justice Silverman upheld the district’s policies governing guests and use of the lounge. While acknowledging that restricting use of the lounge could be counterproductive and that restricting guests could make the firehouse “less welcoming and less likely to recruit and retain members,” the court concluded that those considerations did not make the policies arbitrary or place them outside the district’s authority.

The court also rejected the challenge concerning Keefer’s nomination as chief engineer. Under Town Law § 176(11-a), members of a fire department nominate a candidate for chief, but the nomination is subject to approval by the Board of Fire Commissioners.

Justice Silverman concluded that the commissioners were not required to explain their rejection of Keefer. Citing prior authority, he noted that a board of fire commissioners “may reject the nomination for any reason or no reason.” Once the board rejected Keefer, the department was required to submit a new nominee rather than simply renominate him.

With regard to Jenkins’ termination, the court concluded that jurisdiction to decide whether the disciplinary determination was supported by substantial evidence rested exclusively with the Appellate Division. Justice Silverman therefore severed that portion of the case and transferred it to the Appellate Division, Third Department.

The disciplinary challenge involving Belschwinder was dismissed as moot because the district had abandoned the disciplinary proceedings against him and he was no longer suspended.

The court denied the remaining relief sought by the fire company and the individual petitioners. Thus, Jenkins’ challenge to his termination will continue before the Appellate Division, while the challenges to the district’s firehouse policies and the rejection of Keefer’s nomination were unsuccessful.

The fire district’s attorney, Brad Pinsky, commented on the ruling::

• This is a big deal for fire districts in New York.
• The members challenged the right of the fire district to create rules for the election of chiefs, to reject a chief, to reject the same nominee.
• This is the first court decision ever to hold that the district has such rights.
• The court also held that the district can create rules for guests in the firehouse.

Here is a copy of the decision.