Appellate Court Dismisses Removal Proceeding Against Former Irondequoit Supervisor Andraé Evans

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department has dismissed as moot a removal proceeding filed under New York’s Public Officers Law § 36 against former Irondequoit Town Supervisor Andraé Evans, formally concluding the legal matter without an order of removal or disqualification.

Former Irondequoit Town Supervisor Andraé Evans

According to a press release issued Monday, the court dismissed the proceeding following the conclusion of Evans’ term in office. Because his term had already ended, the court did not issue any ruling removing him from office, and Evans was never formally ousted.

“With the conclusion of Mr. Evans’ term in office, no order of removal or disqualification was issued, and Mr. Evans was never removed from office,” the release states.

In a statement, Evans said he has consistently maintained that his actions while serving as supervisor were lawful and appropriate.

“From the beginning, I have maintained that my conduct as Town Supervisor was lawful, appropriate, and rooted in my responsibility to serve this community,” Evans said. “I stand fully behind my record and the decisions I made in office.”

Evans, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel elected in 2023, said he is evaluating his next steps and will announce any future plans at an appropriate time.

Under Public Officers Law § 36, the appellate division of the state Supreme Court has authority to remove certain local officials for misconduct, malfeasance or neglect of duty. However, when an official’s term ends before a decision is rendered, courts often dismiss such proceedings as “moot,” meaning there is no longer a live controversy requiring judicial action.

Because the case was dismissed as moot, the court did not reach a determination on the merits of the allegations that prompted the filing. That distinction is significant: a dismissal on mootness grounds does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing — nor does it amount to an exoneration based on judicial review of the facts.

Legal experts note that the absence of a removal order means Evans faces no formal disqualification from holding future public office under this proceeding. A removal order under § 36 can carry reputational and, in some cases, practical political consequences. Without such an order, Evans retains the ability to seek future elected or appointed roles.

At the same time, because the court did not rule on the substance of the allegations, questions raised during the proceeding may continue to influence public opinion and political discourse in Irondequoit.

Evans emphasized unity and forward-looking leadership in his remarks.

“With this chapter closed, my focus is on how I can best contribute to the future of our town with integrity and respect,” he said.

The dismissal formally ends the legal process connected to the removal petition, but the broader political implications — including whether Evans pursues future public service — remain to be seen.