Victory For Town 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 the 4,000-foot-long strip of sand popularly known as Truck Beach does not belong to a group of nearby homeowners, nor does a nearby 1,500-foot stretch in front of the White Sands Resort Hotel, as they contended in parallel lawsuits brought in 2009.

Justice Gazzillo’s Nov. 4 decision stated that an 1882 deed in which the East Hampton 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 said, did not persuade him of their ownership of the beach, and the absence of that proof “severely undermines the support for the balance of their ‘nuisance’ claims.”

“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 Monday. 

The mood was jubilant at Monday night’s meeting of the trustees, who with the town were defendants in the lawsuits. In recent years the trustees, established by the Dongan Patent of 1686, have spent considerable time and resources defending public access to beaches under their jurisdiction. 

Diane McNally, who until this year was the trustees’ longtime clerk, or presiding officer, acknowledged the work of past and present members, along with Citizens for Access Rights, a group formed in response to the lawsuits. She also thanked attorneys who worked on the board’s behalf, including John Courtney, the trustees’ attorney until this year; John Jilnicki, senior assistant town attorney, and Anthony Tohill, who was retained to defend the trustees in the lawsuits. “It’s fabulous that this community pulled together,” Ms. McNally said, “and was able to put together that their case was just frivolous.” 

Richard Whalen, the trustees’ lawyer since January, called the decision “a complete victory,” noting that Justice Gazzillo’s decision favored the town as to both title and the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim. 

“It’s been a long and winding road,” said Bill Taylor. a trustee. “We might not be at the end yet, but we’re in a really good place.” 

Mr. Taylor’s observation was accurate: The fight for ownership of the beach may not be over. Stephen Angel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Tuesday that though he did not know what his clients would decide, he would certainly recommend an appeal. “We disagree and are obviously disappointed with the decision,” Mr. Angel said. “We think it’s contrary to the facts presented and the law.” 

“I would hope that is not the case,” Mr. Cantwell said of an appeal, “but if it is, we will vigorously defend.”

Cindi Crain, a founder and spokeswoman of Safe Access for Everyone, a homeowners’ group that opposes beach driving, confirmed that her group was exploring an appeal. In a statement emailed to The Star on Monday, she wrote that “while we are disappointed in the court’s flawed decision today, on behalf of the thousands of East Hampton families who support SAFE’s goals to eliminate beach driving on densely crowded beaches in order to protect both our children and our natural environment, we will continue to work diligently, and are confident we will ultimately prevail.”

Over the course of a five-day bench trial in June, the plaintiffs carried out a broad attack aimed at activities on the ocean beach between Napeague Lane and the western boundary of Napeague State Park and, to the east, in front of the White Sands Motel. They asserted that the deeds to their properties included the beach, and sought to portray a dangerous environment with hundreds of vehicles weaving through crowds and children at play, and people and dogs urinating and defecating in the dunes. This represented a threat to public health, they said, as well as degrading the environment and putting their upland properties at increased risk of flooding.

The defense countered with testimony from longtime residents including Councilman Fred Overton; Ed Michels, the town’s chief harbormaster, and Mr. Taylor, who in addition to serving as a trustee is the town’s waters management supervisor. Some who testified recalled driving on the beach more than 50 years ago, and all dismissed suggestions that conditions have ever been hazardous. 

Justice Gazzillo ruled 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 taking place on the beaches. Alleged damage or inconvenience posed by beach driving, he wrote, was also unproven. 

During the trial, his remarks sometimes suggested skepticism of, and even irritation at, plaintiffs’ arguments and the relevance of their expert testimony. He suggested that the testimony of some plaintiffs, including Bernard Kiembock, owner of the White Sands motel, had undermined their own arguments. Mr. Kiembock, who had complained of disruptive, dangerous, and intimidating behavior by beachgoers toward him and his guests, conceded on the witness stand that his motel never had any vacancies, the judge noted. 

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.”

Justice Gazzillo ended his decision on a personal note, writing that he is concluding a nearly five-decade career in public service. 

It is anticipated that the litigation will continue, he wrote. “Thus far, however, these cases have assumed a life of their own and have the potential to outlive some of the participants. Sadly, even after this opinion is issued, after the years of litigation . . . nothing has resolved these controversies.” 

Tyler Armstrong, a trustee, concluded the discussion at the trustees’ meeting by quoting Justice Gazzillo’s final remarks. “ ‘It was and remains my earnest hope, however, that the parties will resolve their differences, avoid further litigation, and move forward,’ ” Mr. Armstrong read. “ ‘Life is too short.’ ”