Town Prevails in 'Truck Beach' Lawsuit

In a decision that East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell called "an enormous win for public access to our beaches," State Supreme Court Justice Ralph Gazzillo has ruled that a group of property owners do not own the 4,000-foot-long strip of ocean beach popularly known as Truck Beach, nor a nearby 1,500-foot stretch in front of the White Sands Motel, as they contended in lawsuits brought in 2009.

Justice Gazzillo's Nov. 4 decision stated that an 1882 deed in which the town trustees conveyed some 1,000 acres on Napeague to Arthur Benson "clearly reserved some rights 'to the inhabitants of East Hampton' and, arguably, the allowances for some public use."

"Perhaps more importantly," Justice Gazzillo wrote, "is what has not been proven." The plaintiffs, he wrote, did not persuade him of their ownership of the beach, the absence of which "severely undermines the support for the balance of their 'nuisance' claims."

In a June trial in Riverhead, the plaintiffs carried out a broad attack on activity on the beach between Napeague Lane and the western boundary of Napeague State Park, and in front of the White Sands Motel. They sought to portray a dangerous environment with trucks weaving through crowds and at play, and people and dogs urinating and defecating in the dunes, which they said threatened public health, degraded the environment, and put upland properties at increased risk of flooding.

The defense countered with testimony from longtime residents including Town Councilman Fred Overton and Ed Michels, the town's chief harbormaster, who recalled driving on the beach more than 50 years ago and dismissed suggestions that conditions have ever been hazardous.

Justice Gazzillo sided with the defendants, ruling that there was no proof or even reports of beach-related injuries or illnesses, nor was there any proof of significant violations of town code on the beach. Alleged damage or inconvenience posed by beach driving, he wrote, was unproven as well. He also suggested that in their testimony, some plaintiffs, including Bernard Kiembock, owner of the White Sands Motel, had undermined their own arguments, noting that Mr. Kiembock had acknowledged that his motel never has vacancies.

"We're very pleased with what appears to be a strong decision by the State Supreme Court, and we're ready to continue to strongly defend the public's right to use the beach at this location and throughout the Town of East Hampton," Mr. Cantwell said on Monday.

Diane McNally, a town trustee who was until this year its longtime clerk, called the plaintiffs' claim of danger to the public safety farcical. "You can't prove any of that," she said on Monday. "The beach has been used for all this time, and all the detrimental effects they were claiming weren't true. I'm glad the judge saw that."

Town officials were planning eminent domain proceedings had Justice Gazzillo sided with the plaintiffs, resolving to condemn a total of just over 22 acres of shorefront between the mean high water mark and the toe of sand dunes, comprising two separate parcels.

Now, said Mr. Cantwell, "We need to evaluate the decision and discuss the possibilities with our legal advisers. We had begun that [condemnation] process, but it's only begun. It's an expensive process that required a full environmental impact statement, appraisals, and legal fees. If we can avoid those costs based on this decision, that would benefit the town."