Volunteer Fire Company in NY Files Suit Seeking Reinstatement After Fire District Suspends it From Active Duty

The Poland Volunteer Fire Company has filed suit seeking to overturn the Poland Joint Fire District’s decision to suspend the company from providing fire protection within the district. The Article 78 proceeding was filed in New York Supreme Court for Herkimer County on November 24, 2025.

According to the filing, the Poland Volunteer Fire Company has provided fire protection to the area for more than 122 years. The fire district—created in 2017—voted on August 19, 2025, to “suspend its relationship” with the volunteer company. The petition alleges that the decision was made “without any public notice or comment,” and resulted in the company’s removal from the 911 call list effective immediately.

The volunteer company states that prior to the suspension, it had always been the “exclusive provider of primary fire protection within the area now covered by the District.” The petition asserts that the district took this action without making any determination that the company could not provide “adequate and prompt fire protection,” which the company argues is required under New York Town Law § 176(22).

The filing alleges that district commissioners later stated the suspension was based on “personal” reasons rather than operational concerns. One commissioner affidavit referenced in the petition states that the district “never determined” the fire company was unable to provide adequate service and “never even discussed” suspending the company at district meetings.

Following the suspension, the district began relying on mutual-aid companies outside the district to respond to calls. The petition contends that response times—particularly in the Town of Ohio—“more than doubled” due to increased travel distances. Mutual-aid agreements, the volunteer company argues, “are not intended to provide direct fire protection,” but only assistance when a primary agency is overwhelmed.

By mid-October, the district was attempting to enter new fire protection contracts with departments outside its boundaries, including Newport and Barneveld. The petition challenges the legality of these proposed contracts, citing Town Law § 176(22), which limits fire districts from contracting with outside agencies unless the district determines its in-district company is unable to provide adequate protection. The petition also cites Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 1402(e)(2), which places outside fire companies under the control of their home town boards.

The fire company asserts that its staffing remains consistent with historical levels, reporting 44 members—12 interior-qualified and 17 exterior-qualified firefighters—and that its performance data, including response times and mutual-aid statistics, does not support the district’s actions.

The petition further notes that residents have filed a dissolution petition with the Town of Ohio seeking to dissolve the fire district itself. That petition was certified and forwarded to the district on October 20, 2025, but the district has “yet to schedule the referendum required” for voters to decide the district’s future.

The volunteer company is asking the court to:

• annul the district’s August 19, 2025 resolution suspending the company,
• bar the district from contracting with fire companies headquartered outside the district for primary fire protection,
• deem any such contracts to be mutual-aid agreements only,
• order the district to notify 911 that Poland Volunteer Fire Company is to be restored as the in-district fire company, and
• issue preliminary relief reinstating the company during the litigation.

The petition argues the district’s action was “arbitrary and capricious,” unsupported by evidence, and taken in violation of lawful procedure. It also claims the district cannot ensure adequate fire protection without its in-district fire company due to its lack of authority over outside departments.