When a government decision is on the line, the rules are not the same as ordinary civil litigation. There are short deadlines, special procedures, and a body of law built specifically around how municipalities, agencies, and boards must act. Toporowski Law is an Albany, New York litigation boutique that handles both sides of these disputes — representing individuals and businesses challenging government action, and counseling and defending municipalities, boards, agencies, public officials, and government employees — along with the special proceedings that municipal work routinely requires, across New York.
Our municipal experience is real, not theoretical. As a former Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany, our founder has handled police disciplinary arbitrations, defended government employees against civil-rights claims in state and federal court, represented public employers in proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), served as a Special Prosecutor, and clerked at the Appellate Division. Having worked from inside government, the firm now brings that perspective to both sides — whether challenging a government decision or defending one. That work gives us a practical view of how these matters are actually charged, defended, and decided.
Below is the municipal and government work we handle. If you are a government body, official, or employee facing a deadline or a decision you need to defend, the most useful thing you can do is talk to a lawyer early, because in this area timing often matters more than the merits.
Article 78 Proceedings
An Article 78 proceeding is the special court case used to challenge or defend a determination by a municipality, agency, board, or other public body. It is the vehicle for disputes over licenses and permits, public employment and discipline, zoning and land use, denials of records requests, and similar official action. We handle Article 78 proceedings on both sides — bringing petitions for individuals and businesses to overturn a determination, such as a disciplinary suspension, a permit or zoning denial, or another agency or board decision, and defending the determinations that municipalities and agencies make. We also counsel public bodies on building a record that holds up if a decision is later challenged.
The court usually does not substitute its own judgment. The question is generally whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, made without a hearing the law required, or unsupported by substantial evidence after a hearing.
Timing is critical. An Article 78 proceeding generally must be commenced within four months, but the exact deadline depends on the type of determination and when it became final and binding. Because these windows are strict, do not rely on a general rule. Speak with counsel as soon as a determination is in dispute so the clock does not run out before the matter is reviewed.
Defending the Validity of Local Laws
A lawsuit challenging a law the municipality has enacted is one of the harder problems a government faces. When a local law is challenged as beyond the government’s authority or otherwise invalid, the proper vehicle is usually a declaratory-judgment action rather than an Article 78 proceeding — Article 78 tests proceedings taken under an otherwise valid statute, while a declaratory-judgment action tests the validity of the law itself. The stakes are high: a duly enacted law carries a strong presumption of validity, but defending that presumption takes a clear command of home-rule authority, the enabling statutes, and the legislative record behind the enactment.
Matt has handled this directly. As a former Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany, he successfully defended the validity of duly enacted city laws in declaratory-judgment actions, prevailing in New York Supreme Court and on appeal before the Appellate Division.
We bring that same approach to the municipalities, agencies, and government officials we represent: build a clean record, frame the presumption of validity and the government’s authority to act, and litigate the question through the trial court and, where necessary, the Appellate Division. We can also advise a municipality before a law is enacted, so that the authority to act and the supporting record are in place if the enactment is later challenged. We defend the validity of local laws and government action, and the firm has successfully defended local laws and government action in court and on appeal.
Municipal & Government-Liability Litigation
Lawsuits against local governments and their employees follow their own track. We defend municipalities and government employees in civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and in related liability litigation in state and federal court. Our founder has defended government employees against civil-rights claims, and that experience shapes how we approach these cases the way the defense actually has to: identifying immunities and defenses early, evaluating exposure from day one, and preparing each case as if it will be tried.
Many claims against a municipality also require a formal notice of claim, filed within a strict statutory period before any lawsuit can proceed, and missing that step can end a case before it begins. Other claims, including many federal civil-rights claims, are not subject to that requirement. Because the rules vary by the type of claim, the notice-of-claim and timing questions should be confirmed with counsel at the outset.
Public-Sector Employment & Civil-Service Discipline
Public-sector employment runs on a different rulebook than private jobs, with civil-service protections, collective bargaining agreements, and statutory disciplinary procedures layered on top. Discipline and grievances often run through Civil Service Law Section 75 hearings or contractual arbitration rather than ordinary courts, while improper-practice and representation disputes are heard by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) under the Taylor Law.
We handle disciplinary and public-sector employment matters for the government bodies that employ public workers and police officers, and we represent public employers before PERB. Our founder has handled police disciplinary arbitrations and appeared in PERB proceedings, and we prepare the record carefully, because in arbitration the hearing is frequently the whole case.
Public Safety & Policing
Policing and public-safety matters sit where employment law, civil-rights litigation, and government policy meet. We advise government employers on police disciplinary matters and public-safety policy, and we defend government employees against claims arising from their official duties.
This is an area where our founder’s experience is genuinely differentiated: a background that includes police disciplinary arbitration, defense of government employees in civil-rights cases, and service as a former prosecutor and Special Prosecutor. That perspective informs how we assess these matters on the merits, from the underlying incident through discipline, litigation, or review.
As a former Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany, Matt regularly advised the Chief of Police on litigation and public-safety matters, and he helped revise the police department’s General Orders — the policies that govern how a department operates day to day. He also represented the police department and the Chief of Police in a range of civil litigation.
That experience informs how we counsel government employers today. We understand that public-safety decisions have to work as policy and hold up in court, and we advise clients with both in view — from drafting and revising department policy to defending the department and its leadership when those decisions are challenged.
Government Transparency: FOIL & Open Meetings
New York’s transparency laws govern what the public can see and when government must act in the open. The Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) controls access to government records, and the Open Meetings Law governs when public bodies must conduct their business publicly. Both come with specific procedures, exemptions, and appeal rights.
We counsel agencies and boards on responding to FOIL requests and complying with the Open Meetings Law, and we help public bodies handle the disputes these laws generate. Under FOIL, a denial is generally first appealed administratively to the agency’s records-access appeals officer, and only after that step can an unresolved dispute proceed to court, typically as an Article 78 proceeding. Open Meetings Law disputes follow their own enforcement path. Sound procedure at the request and meeting stage is the best protection against a later challenge.
General Municipal Counsel & Special Proceedings
Beyond litigation, boards, agencies, and public officials regularly need practical, day-to-day legal guidance, on procedure, transparency obligations, employment questions, and, where applicable, land-use and zoning board matters. We provide that counsel and handle the special proceedings that municipal work routinely requires.
The goal is straightforward: help officials act within their authority, follow the correct procedure, and build a clean record. Sound process on the front end is usually the best defense against an Article 78 challenge on the back end, and when a dispute does arise, you already have counsel who knows the matter.
As a former Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany, Matt advised senior elected officials and agency heads — including the Mayor and the Chief of Police — on litigation and on the public-safety and governance questions that come across their desks. Today, other municipalities and officials call on Matt in private practice, and he brings that cross-jurisdictional perspective to the boards, agencies, and officials we counsel.
Whether the question is the scope of an official’s authority, the right procedure for an upcoming action, or how a contemplated decision will look if it is later challenged in court, we give practical guidance grounded in how municipal government works — and in having sat on the government side of these decisions.
Why Toporowski Law
Toporowski Law is led by founder Matthew A. Toporowski, a commercial litigator, former prosecutor, and former appellate law clerk. Matt litigates and tries cases in state and federal courts throughout New York, as well as in arbitration. He is admitted in New York and Pennsylvania.
Municipal matters turn on government-side experience, and that experience is at the center of this practice. For several years, Matt served as a Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany — a role that added to a career that already included work as a former prosecutor and a former appellate law clerk, all of which he now brings to private litigation. In that government role, he advised senior city officials, including the Mayor and the Chief of Police, on litigation and public-safety matters; he helped revise the police department’s General Orders; and he represented the police department and the Chief in a range of civil litigation. He defended the validity of duly enacted city laws in declaratory-judgment actions, in New York Supreme Court and on appeal before the Appellate Division. Because of that work, we understand how these decisions are made, defended, and reviewed on appeal — and today, in private practice, other municipalities and officials call on Matt for counsel as well.
Matt also spearheaded a first-of-its-kind community conviction-sealing clinic for the City of Albany that helped eligible individuals seal certain years-old criminal convictions — public-service work he undertook in his government role.
You work directly with the attorney handling your matter, not a rotating cast of associates. You get direct access, fast responses when something is time-sensitive, and an honest read on your options, including when the practical answer is not to litigate. Based in Albany with reach across New York, from the Capital Region to the Hudson Valley to New York City, we bring local roots and statewide capability to every matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Article 78 proceeding?
It is a special court proceeding used to challenge or defend a decision made by a New York municipality, agency, board, or public official, such as a permit or license decision, a zoning ruling, a public-employment or disciplinary determination, or a FOIL denial. The court usually does not decide what it would have done; instead it reviews whether the government acted lawfully, rationally, and with the required procedure. We defend these determinations and counsel public bodies on the proceedings.
How long do I have to bring or respond to an Article 78 proceeding?
As a general matter, an Article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four months, but the precise deadline depends on the type of determination and when it became final and binding. Some related claims carry different limits, and many municipal claims also require a notice of claim filed well before any lawsuit, though that requirement does not apply to every type of claim. Because these deadlines are strict, contact a municipal attorney as soon as a determination is in dispute rather than assuming you have months to act.
My agency received a FOIL request, or a requester is challenging a denial. Can you help?
Yes. We counsel agencies and boards on responding to FOIL requests and on the Open Meetings Law, and we help public bodies handle the disputes these laws generate. Under FOIL, a denial is generally appealed administratively to the agency’s records-access appeals officer first, and an unresolved dispute can then proceed to court, often as an Article 78 proceeding. The procedure and deadlines matter, so it is worth having the request and any denial reviewed promptly.
What government-side experience does the firm bring to municipal cases?
Our founder is a former Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Albany, with a background that includes police disciplinary arbitration, defense of government employees against civil-rights claims in state and federal court, appearances before PERB, and service as a former prosecutor and Special Prosecutor, along with a clerkship at the Appellate Division. That is real municipal experience, the perspective of someone who understands how these matters are charged, defended, and decided from the inside.
Can you defend our city or town if someone sues to throw out a law we passed?
Yes. A challenge to the validity of a law a municipality has enacted is usually brought as a declaratory-judgment action rather than an Article 78 proceeding, and a duly enacted law carries a strong presumption of validity. We defend that presumption — framing the government’s home-rule authority and the record behind the enactment, and litigating the question through the trial court and, where necessary, on appeal before the Appellate Division. We can also advise before a law is enacted so the authority to act and the supporting record are in place if it is later challenged.
Talk to an Experienced Albany Municipal Attorney
If your municipality, board, agency, or office is facing a government decision, a civil-service or disciplinary matter, a civil-rights claim, or a FOIL or transparency question, we can help you map the right next step. Reach out and we will tell you promptly whether we are able to assist. Based in Albany, serving clients across New York.
Attorney Advertising. This website is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Toporowski Law, PLLC, 150 State Street, Albany, NY 12207.
From our blog: What Is an Article 78 Proceeding?
