A group of Putnam County voters has filed a lawsuit against County Executive Kevin Byrne and his re-election campaign, alleging the campaign accepted nearly $20,000 in contributions above limits permitted under state Election Law.
The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court, is the latest challenge to Byrne’s campaign finances and comes less than two months after his Democratic opponent, Brett Yarris, filed a complaint with the New York State Board of Elections raising similar allegations.
The new court action was brought by five Putnam residents whose political registrations span the Republican, Conservative, Democratic and Libertarian parties. They allege Byrne’s campaign accepted a combined $19,468.36 above the applicable contribution limit from 10 contributors during the 2026 election cycle.
The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the filing of the lawsuit does not necessarily mean that Byrne or his campaign violated election law.
Alex Mathis, campaign manager for Byrne, said the campaign has received no finding or notice of a violation from the State Board of Elections concerning excessive contributions.
At the center of the dispute is how New York’s campaign contribution limits apply when a candidate does not face a contested party primary.
Under Election Law §14-114, contribution limits for local offices are calculated separately for a nomination to public office and for the general election. For local offices such as Putnam County executive, the general-election limit is based on the number of registered voters in the district, while a nomination limit is based on the number of voters enrolled in the candidate’s party.
The plaintiffs contend Byrne was limited to $3,639.80 per contributor because he did not face an actual Republican or Conservative Party primary and therefore could not take advantage of additional contribution limits associated with those nominations.
The lawsuit identifies 10 contributors whose aggregate contributions allegedly exceeded $3,639.80. According to the petitioners, the amounts above the threshold total $19,468.36.
The figures are allegations contained in the lawsuit and have not been determined by a court to constitute excessive contributions.
State Election Law establishes separate formulas for contributions associated with nomination to office and election to office. The State Board of Elections cautions that contribution limits can change and should be verified with the state or applicable local Board of Elections.
The lawsuit also challenges the contribution limit that the plaintiffs say was being displayed on Byrne’s campaign website.
According to the petition, the campaign website continued to solicit contributions of as much as $5,631.60 as of Sept. 17. The plaintiffs argue that amount improperly incorporates contribution capacity associated with party nominations for which Byrne did not face a contested primary.
The Putnam County Board of Elections currently lists Byrne on the Nov. 3 general-election ballot on the Republican and Libertarian lines. Conservative candidate Tatiana Brahimi is running on the Conservative line, while Yarris is listed on the Democratic, Working Families and For the People lines.
Rather than seeking refunds or financial penalties, the five voters are asking the court to intervene before Election Day. They want a judge to declare that the contribution limits were violated and prohibit Byrne’s campaign from accepting or soliciting additional contributions above $3,639.80. They also want the campaign ordered to remove what they contend is an incorrect contribution limit from its website.
The lawsuit specifically states that the plaintiffs are not asking the court for penalties or other remedies that fall under the authority of the chief enforcement counsel of the State Board of Elections.
The lawsuit parallels a complaint that Yarris filed earlier this summer with the State Board of Elections.
As Mahopac News previously reported, Yarris alleged that Byrne’s campaign had accepted nearly $20,000 in contributions exceeding what Yarris maintained was the $3,639.80 general election limit.
Byrne disputed those allegations at the time, calling them “baseless” and maintaining that his campaign had lawfully raised money under contribution limits available while preparing for the possibility of a primary. He also said his campaign's filings were timely and compliant with state election requirements.
Yarris disagreed, arguing that Byrne ultimately had no Republican primary and therefore was not entitled to retain contributions attributable to a primary-election limit.
Mathis characterized the continuing dispute as politically motivated and accused Yarris and his supporters of misrepresenting the campaign-finance issue.
“Voters want to know what candidates are going to do for them if elected,” Mathis said. “Instead, Brett Yarris and his allies ... continue to focus on political attacks, lawsuits and complaints while repeatedly misrepresenting basic facts.”
Mathis also pointed to favorable comments Yarris made about Byrne's record before becoming his opponent, arguing that Yarris had previously praised Byrne on issues including taxes, sales-tax sharing with municipalities, livestreaming government meetings, the county's Early Learning Center and agricultural initiatives.
“He can’t erase those accomplishments simply because he’s running against Kevin now,” Mathis said.
The State Board of Elections has not publicly announced a determination on Yarris's complaint.
Under the state board’s enforcement procedures, complaints and investigations remain confidential while they are pending.
The new lawsuit seeks to put a related question directly before a judge with the Nov. 3 general election approaching.
Yarris, who is not listed as one of the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed Sept. 18, issued a statement on pointing to the suit as reinforcing the concerns raised in his earlier complaint.
One of the plaintiffs, Robert Cullen, said the action was intended to determine whether the campaign complied with the law.
“Putnam residents have to know that their leaders are following the law,” Cullen said in a press release.
The lawsuit remains pending.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here