A panel of four New York State Appellate Division judges reversed much of a 2016 State Supreme Court decision on Feb. 3, ruling that property owners landward of a 4,000-foot stretch of ocean beach on Napeague commonly known as Truck Beach do, in fact, own the beach.
The reversal in the years-long struggle pitting several property owners associations and individuals against East Hampton Town, the town trustees, and residents who for generations have driven and parked on and otherwise enjoyed the stretch of beach reignites a controversy that could result in around 22 acres of shorefront between the mean high-water mark and the toe of the sand dunes being condemned.
The property owners, in parallel lawsuits brought in 2009, had contended that the deeds to their properties included the beach, citing an 1882 deed in which the town trustees conveyed some 1,000 acres on Napeague to Arthur Benson. In a five-day bench trial in Riverhead in June 2016, they 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 Resort Motel.
The plaintiffs portrayed 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, they contended, represented a threat to public health and degradation of the environment.
In his Nov. 4, 2016, decision, Justice Ralph Gazzillo stated that the 1882 deed "clearly reserved some rights 'to the inhabitants of East Hampton' and, arguably, the allowances for some public use." Perhaps more important, he wrote, "is what has not been proven." The plaintiffs had not persuaded him of their ownership of the beach, he stated, and the absence of that proof "severely undermines the support for the balance of their 'nuisance' claims."
But the Appellate Division judges came to a starkly different conclusion, writing that "contrary to the Supreme Court's determination," the homeowners associations "established their title claims by a preponderance of the evidence." A land title expert had testified to the homeowners associations' chains of title to their respective properties at the 2016 trial, they wrote, concluding that said titles extended to the mean high-water mark of the ocean.
The trustees, the judges wrote, had conveyed title to the disputed portion of the beach to Arthur Benson, "the homeowners associations' common predecessor-in-interest," in 1882. "The Town and Trustees," defendants in the lawsuits, "produced no evidence that any of the deeds in the respective title chains were invalid. Nor did they otherwise produce evidence controverting the chains of title to the respective properties."
The town and trustees "contend that even if the homeowners associations established their respective title claims, the Town nevertheless retains the right to allow the public to operate and park vehicles along the entire beach -- including the portion owned by the homeowners associations -- based on a reservation contained in the Benson Deed," the judges wrote. "Specifically, the clause at issue 'reserved to the inhabitants of the Town of East Hampton the right to land fish boats and netts [sic] to spread the netts [sic] on the adjacent sands and care for the fish and material as has been customary heretofore on the South Shore of the Town lying westerly of these conveyed premises."
That reservation "cannot be construed as broadly as the Town and Trustees contend." Rather, the judges wrote, it is akin to "an easement allowing the public to use the homeowners associations' portion of the beach only for fishing and fishing-related purposes" and "does not confer upon the Town and Trustees lawful governmental or regulatory power to issue permits allowing members of the public to operate and park vehicles on any portion of the beach owned by the homeowners associations."
At the trustees' meeting on Monday, Francis Bock, the clerk, said that the decision is being reviewed and the trustees are determining the options available to them. "It's just important for the public to know that we will continue to press on this, and we will do everything we can to make sure that they have continued access to that beach."
"We're all disappointed in the outcome," said Christopher Carillo, the trustees' attorney. "It's important that the trustees and myself reiterate to the community that over all, we're obviously in favor of beach access rights and defending our ownership to the beach. . . . I don't have much to add except to let the community know that this isn't the end of the line, and we still have a lot of work to do."
Before the 2016 State Supreme Court decision, town officials were planning eminent domain proceedings had the court 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 the sand dunes.
"We're going to review all our options," Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday, echoing a statement issued from Town Hall on Friday stating that the town board will seek judicial approval to file an appeal of the Appellate Division's decision and proceed with condemnation should that opportunity be denied. "The town board will take any and all steps necessary to insure that East Hampton's longstanding, cherished rights and tradition of public beach access continue now and for generations to come," Mr. Van Scoyoc said in the statement.
Justice Gazzillo's 2016 decision included a prophetic note. At the time, he wrote that he was concluding a nearly five-decade career in public service, and anticipated that the litigation would continue. "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."
He expressed hope that the parties would resolve their differences, avoiding further litigation. "Life is too short," he wrote.
Indeed, the specter of an appeal was looming even then. "We may not be at the end yet," Bill Taylor, a deputy clerk of the trustees and then the town's waterways management supervisor, said at the time.
A challenge to the Supreme Court decision was heard last year, shortly after Stephen Angel, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Star that he and James Catterson, who also represented a plaintiff in the 2016 trial, would argue on their clients' behalf. "We've waited a long time to present our legal arguments," he said last year, "and are looking forward to seeing what the appeals court says."
Residents of East Hampton have been using the beach in question for generations, a fact that was established in the 2016 trial with testimony from residents including then-Councilman Fred Overton, Ed Michels, the town's chief harbormaster, and Mr. Taylor. Some who testified recalled driving on the beach more than 50 years earlier, 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 the town code taking place on the beaches.
--
Note: This article has been updated since it originally appeared online.
