A footnote in a ruling from the New York state Court of Appeals suggests that, as treasurer in Niagara County, David Broderick is responsible for handling the duties of public administrator.

A June 29, 2005, court decision on an appeal from former Brooklyn Surrogate Court Judge Michael Feinberg notes that, under section 1001 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedures Act, in counties where no formal office of the public administrator exists, “the function of the public administrator is undertaken by the county’s chief fiscal officer.” In its ruling, the court noted that separate public administrators’ offices exist only in New York City, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Onondaga, Suffolk and Westchester counties.

Feinberg was removed from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct after it was determined that he failed to apply the proper requirements regarding the awarding of legal fees to counsel for the public administrator. The commission determined that by allowing a friend to collect millions of dollars in attorney fees without the proper affidavits, Feinberg warranted removable misconduct and “demonstrated a shocking disregard” for the law. The Court of Appeals rejected Feinberg’s request to have the decision overturned.

Broderick’s conduct as public administrator has come under scrutiny in a case involving Amherst attorney Teresa Snyder who has claimed in county court that Broderick overstepped his bounds by allowing his wife, local realtor Jane Broderick, to serve agent for a home formerly owned by Snyder’s mother. Snyder has filed with the county surrogate’s court office documents that suggest the Brodericks have worked together on at least six other estates in which Mrs. Broderick collected fees for her work as agent.

According to the state Office of Court Administration, public administrators in New York are governed under Article 12 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act and, as such, are subject to the Guidelines of the Administrative Board for the Offices of the Public Administrators. Those guidelines say public administrators may not employ as outside vendors “any individual related by blood or marriage” to the public administrator or any employee of the public administrator’s office. The guidelines also do not alloy any estate fiduciary to “self-deal.”

The case has lead to requests from several county Democrats and residents for the formation of a board of inquiry to review the matter. County lawmakers are allowed to form inquiry boards to investigate individuals to determine if they acted illegally or unethically while serving in their role as officers of the county.

County Attorney Claude Joerg has consistently argued that the Legislature has no authority to examine Broderick’s work as public administrator because that work is a private matter, separate from his role as treasurer. He has also argued that the Legislature should not involve itself in a matter that is currently pending in court.

Joerg did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Broderick’s attorney George Muscato continues to maintain that his client did nothing wrong in allowing his wife’s real estate firm to be involved in property transactions he oversaw as public administrator.

Muscato said he has yet to be shown evidence that the guidelines were ever formally enacted or distributed to individuals who are responsible for administering estates. He also insists that even the rules are valid, Broderick has not violated them since the they apply only to real estate brokers, not agents like Mrs. Broderick.

“We are on solid ground and his behavior was totally ethical,” Muscato said.

David Bookstaver, a spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration, said only that the issue will be resolved by the local court.

“This a matter before Judge (Matt) Murphy and he will address it,” Bookstaver said.

Minority Leader Dennis Virtuoso, D-Niagara Falls, said he still does not agree with the Joerg’s position and intends to continue to pursue the matter.

“If I don’t get any satisfaction. I have to go to a higher source,” he said.