At Georgica: New Chapter In Feud

Three newsworthy developments gave the ongoing story of the dispute between two celebrated Georgica Pond neighbors, the lifestyle guru Martha Stewart and the Manhattan real estate tycoon Harry Macklowe, a new chapter this week.

First, a local attorney representing Ms. Stewart in numerous legal actions taken by her next-door neighbor has asked the State Supreme Court in Riverhead to allow him to withdraw. Publicly, he cited "the media attention to the various matters of litigation" as his reason. Further explanation for the attorney's request is to be disclosed privately to a judge.

Second, The Star learned that a new lawsuit was filed in June by Mr. Macklowe against Ms. Stewart and the Village of East Hampton.

Second Suit

The suit is the second he has brought as a result of village decisions involving Ms. Stewart's Georgica Close Road property. This time Mr. Macklowe is challenging Ms. Stewart's certificate of occupancy in an Article 78 proceeding.

And, third, three citations for alleged Village Code violations were filed with East Hampton Town Justice Court on Tuesday against Mr. Macklowe. That brings the total number of violations charged against him to six.

The request to be relieved of representing Ms. Stewart in various matters connected with her neighbor was dated Tuesday and signed by Leo nard I. Ackerman, an East Hampton attorney serving as her co-counsel.

"Much Too Much"

According to the document, which was faxed anonymously to The Star just before press time from a Kinko's office in Manhattan, the request was made on behalf of Mr. Ackerman and an Islandia law firm, Bracken & Margolin. Justice William Underwood has set July 14 as the deadline to appeal the attorneys' request.

Reached late yesterday, Mr. Ackerman said that he would continue to work on Ms. Stewart's behalf, but that it was her wish that her corporate attorney, Jeffrey Stephens, who has offices in New York and Connecticut, assume responsibility as primary counsel. The same applies to Bracken & Margolin, which had served as co-counsel to Mr. Ackerman, the East Hampton attorney said.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Ackerman said there had been "much too much" work for a small firm such as his to handle effectively.

Nonstop Litigation

The legal request cites the numerous lawsuits, motions, appeals, restraining orders, criminal complaints, Zoning Board of Appeals and State Department on Environmental Conservation applications, and contempt proceedings.

"This litigation has been nonstop since June 14, 1996," the document states. It also refers to "attempt[s] to salvage the client relation to be explained in camera [privately to the judge], all in the context of extremely distracting newly emerging developments . . . and media coverage" as well as "the high level of hostility between the parties."

The document also refers to a request to the court from Mr. Macklowe to be allowed to enter Ms. Stewart's property "for purposes of inspection." Mr. Ackerman wrote that Mr. Macklowe "has no legitimate need to conduct the inspection." Mr. Stephens could not be reached yesterday.

Mr. Macklowe's latest lawsuit asks the court to revoke the certificate of occupancy as well as to overturn an earlier Zoning Board of Appeals' decision declining to consider Mr. Macklowe's appeal of the certificate.

The suit was filed with the County Clerk on June 11, by KAM Hampton I Realty Corp., the corporate name in which Mr. Macklowe owns the property, as well as by Mr. Macklowe and his wife, Linda Macklowe.

The Village Code violations allege that Mr. Macklowe had a fence and landscaping illegally installed within wetlands jurisdiction without a permit and that the fence exceeds the village's height restrictions.

Cause Of Action

The citations accuse Mr. Macklowe of having installed a fence that includes "chemically treated wood posts sunken into the ground" and landscaping within the wetlands setback, both "substantially impairing the benefits of the wetlands," according to a document filed with the court by Thomas Lawrence, a village code enforcement officer who is listed in Mr. Macklowe's lawsuit.

A third count charges that the fence is taller than six feet tall, in violation of the Village Code.

Meanwhile, as of press time, there was no word from Suffolk District Attorney James M. Catterson Jr. on whether misdemeanor charges of reckless endangerment, criminal trespass, or possibly even assault against Ms. Stewart would be filed. The matter has been under review by the D.A.'s office for five weeks.

Triggering Incident

Word that Ms. Stewart would be charged with misdemeanors came from the East Hampton Village Police Chief, Glen Stonemetz, after 23-year-old Matthew J. Munnich of Port Jefferson Station filed a complaint with police alleging that Ms. Stewart backed her Suburban into him, pinning him against a gate control box in Mr. Macklowe's driveway on May 21 and injuring him.

The two-year-old dispute between Mr. Macklowe and Ms. Stewart centers around plantings at the border of their properties. Mr. Macklowe was cited for those plantings and lighting fixtures a year ago and is scheduled to have a bench trial Tuesday in East Hampton Town Justice Court. A separate court date of July 28 is scheduled on the three new Village Code charges.

Second Residence?

The new lawsuit brought by Mr. Macklowe claims that a C.O. should not have been issued because Ms. Stewart's property contains a studio with a bathroom, refrigerator, washer and dryer, and counter sink. He claims it is being used as a second residence, which is prohibited under the Village Code.

He also seeks an injunction to keep the village from issuing a building permit for the structure and to keep Ms. Stewart from "constructing, erecting, maintaining, occupying, or using [the studio] for any purpose whatsoever."

"The properties surrounding Georgica Pond are large parcels improved by multimillion-dollar homes and Georgica Pond is notable as an environmentally unique water body surrounded by lush and pristine wetlands," the lawsuit claims.

The former owner and designer of Ms. Stewart's house, the late architect Gordon Bunshaft, was denied a request 21 years ago to build the studio with bed and bath. There was no prohibition on the structure without those appurtenances, however.

Village Is Ox?

An updated C.O. was issued by the village (Mr. Macklowe claims improperly) in 1995, when Ms. Stewart was in contract to buy the house from the Museum of Modern Art, to which the property was bequeathed by Mr. Gordon and his widow, Nina Bunshaft. It appears to show that the bathroom and partial kitchen facilities were in place before Ms. Stewart bought the property.

Mr. Macklowe this week referred any questions to his Water Mill attorney, Michael Walsh. The only comment Mr. Walsh would make was that "this all began with Martha Stewart's illegal clearing of the wetlands." She has not been charged with a Village Code violation, however.

Howard Pachman of the Commack firm Pachman, Pachman & Brown, the firm that will defend the village against the suit, could not be reached yesterday for comment.

Larry Cantwell, the Village Administrator, would not comment on the legal issues raised in Mr. Macklowe's suit. He did say, however, that the village "sometimes becomes the ox in some of these neighbor disputes."

"I think it's unfortunate," Mr. Cantwell added. "It's a waste of money."