Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
150578598
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Utica, NY, USA
Phone
3157937000
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,674,334
Expenses
$15,587,879
Assets
$6,989,402
Liabilities
$7,750,530

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL B BERMAN ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • ANNE BOGARDUS (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW SKINNER ESQ (1RST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL J LUPIA ESQ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL J LUPIA ESQ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $219,999 total reported compensation
  • CINDY DOMINGUE-HENDRICKSON (DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION): $203,167 total reported compensation
  • CHERYL EDWARDS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $194,358 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lasmny's mission is to provide free legal assistance to low-income people facing civil legal problems that impact the basic needs of life. Through legal advice, emergency legal services and legal representation, we help low-income people stabilize their finances, protect themselves and their children from domestic violence, obtain access to healthcare, avoid homelessness as a result of wrongful evictions, protect the family home from foreclosure and increase household income. We also target specific vulnerable populations with our services, such as senior citizens, victims of domestic violence, people with disabilities, refugees and immigrants, and veterans.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization provides free counsel, advice, and legal representation in civil (non-criminal) matters. These matters may include consumer, housing, special education, access to healthcare, public benefits, divorce & other family matters, domestic violence, employment, disability, unemployment benefits, citizenship and immigration and others. The organization's service area spans 13 counties across central New York. These counties include broome, cayuga, chenango, cortland, Delaware, herkimer, jefferson, lewis, madison, oneida, onondaga, oswego and otsego counties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,336.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.11; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.