A lawsuit between the Orange County Industrial Development Agency and its independent monitor concluded Tuesday, June 30, after the Orange County Supreme Court upheld the monitor’s veto of a tax benefit package for a proposed Amazon warehouse and dismissed the case.

The position of independent monitor was created in 2023 following the guilty pleas of several IDA officials on corruption charges in 2021. Under the statute establishing the role, the monitor can issue a notice within 72 hours of an IDA vote informing the agency of a potential conflict of interest, violation of law, or violation of the agency’s tax exemption policy. The notice renders the agreement void unless the IDA reconsiders it.

Brian Sanvidge, who leads the regulatory compliance group at the accounting firm Anchin, was appointed to the monitor position in 2024. In November 2025, Sanvidge issued a notice of violation to the OCIDA regarding a proposed Amazon warehouse project in the Town of Wawayanda.

The IDA filed suit in Orange County Supreme Court in December 2025 seeking to nullify the veto, arguing the notice of violation came after the window to issue it had closed, that circumstances surrounding the veto suggested the monitor could be unduly influenced, and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious.

The Amazon project was approved Oct. 23, with the standard veto window set to expire Oct. 26. However, the IDA and the monitor agreed to extend that period until the IDA responded to all of the monitor’s outstanding questions, with a deadline of 5 p.m. Oct. 28.

On Oct. 28, the monitor submitted five questions to the IDA, along with questions submitted by state Sen. James Skoufis and the organizations Protect Orange County and Save Wawayanda regarding the project. The IDA responded to the monitor’s questions Nov. 5 but did not answer two of the requests. Sanvidge had asked for the specific alternate sites Amazon was considering to Wawayanda, which the IDA said it could not disclose due to Amazon’s confidential site selection process. He also requested notes from the IDA’s meetings with Amazon regarding the Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, which the agency did not provide.

Sanvidge issued a notice of violation Nov. 25, nullifying the agreement. The IDA argued its Nov. 5 response had started the 72-hour clock, meaning the deadline for the monitor’s notice had already passed. The monitor argued that because the IDA failed to fully respond to his questions, the clock had never started.

Judge Maria Vasquez-Doles ruled the suit should be dismissed, finding that the OCIDA could have addressed the harm caused by the monitor’s veto without pursuing legal action, noting the agency could have reconsidered the PILOT at a subsequent meeting and issued an authorizing resolution addressing the monitor’s concerns. Vasquez-Doles also sided with the monitor in ruling that his notice of violation was valid, since the IDA had not answered all of his questions.

Skoufis praised the ruling and criticized the IDA in a statement.

“I applaud the court for their intelligent, well-reasoned decision that upholds the monitor’s veto of an $80 million property tax break for an Amazon mega-warehouse,” Skoufis said. “Instead of fighting oversight, the IDA is encouraged to follow the law and start prioritizing taxpayer interests.”

OCIDA CEO Bill Fioravanti expressed disappointment with the outcome.

“While we respect the judicial process, we are disappointed that this case wasn’t decided on the underlying facts,” Fioravanti said. He added that the project “represented a monumental economic opportunity” and that the jobs and tax revenue it promised “would have given a huge economic boost to the Town of Wawayanda and to residents throughout the region.”

The monitor dispute is not the only legal obstacle facing the Amazon project. The Wawayanda Zoning Board of Appeals voted in June 2025 not to grant the project a height variance that would have allowed it to exceed the town’s 65-foot height limit. That decision led developer Scannell Properties to sue the zoning board. A judge upheld the board’s decision, and Scannell has appealed; the case is currently pending before the Appellate Division, Second Department.