A hearing in New York State Supreme Court in Riverhead regarding the Maidstone Gun Club in Wainscott, which remains shuttered under a temporary restraining order imposed in December, was adjourned from Tuesday to Sept. 14 at the request of attorneys for the plaintiffs, a group of seven nearby property owners seeking the club’s permanent closure.
Brian Doyle of Greenberg Traurig, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, wrote to Justice Christopher Modelewski on Friday “to request an adjournment of the preliminary injunction hearing . . . so that the parties may engage in settlement discussions.”
The gun club’s lease of 97 acres of town-owned land, for which it pays $100 per year, will expire on Oct. 31. Its officials filed a notice of intent to renew the lease with the town clerk last year, but the East Hampton Town Board, under pressure from some Wainscott residents, has indicated that any renewed lease would come with new, as yet unspecified terms.
Justice Modelewski issued the temporary restraining order following a lawsuit filed by neighbors of the club, who have either found bullets on their property or discovered that their houses had been struck by bullets. One year ago, when a bullet struck a Merchants Path house, members of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee began voicing additional concerns about environmental damage, such as lead contamination of the sole-source aquifer, as well as noise pollution and the club’s lease terms, which one called “a gift of public land to individual citizens.” One member predicted more litigation should the club’s lease be renewed.
Some members of the club have asserted, including in letters to The Star, that any bullets that struck residences in Wainscott must have come from firearms shot from outside of the club, and not from its rifle range, which the club voluntarily closed on Aug. 5, 2022, the day a bullet struck the house on Merchants Path.
On Aug. 10, the club sent a letter to the East Hampton Town Board proposing improved safety features and oversight. These include a qualified individual on duty when the rifle range is in use, installation of gates and additional cameras, and permission for the town to access the property for inspection.
Since then, attorneys for the plaintiffs and the gun club have written to Justice Modelewski, each seeking terms advantageous to their clients.
The parties agree that the T.R.O. shall remain in effect while the hearing is adjourned, Mr. Doyle wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs. If settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, “the parties would like to schedule the continuation of the preliminary injunction hearing for the next date available to the court.” The hearing is now scheduled for Sept. 14.
On Aug. 11, Lon Seidman of the LaMonica Herbst & Maniscalco firm, representing the gun club, wrote to Justice Modelewski regarding the club’s June 22 motion to modify the temporary restraining order “for the limited and specific purpose of authorizing the sound testing” as set forth in a June 20 affidavit of Eric Warren.
The gun club retained Mr. Warren, a co-founder of the Tennessee firm SEP Forensic Consultants, to conduct testing that, according to his affidavit requesting permission from the court to do so, would involve shooting a total of nine cartridges from the club’s rifle range, six of which would be “of the same caliber ammunition that was shot at the club’s rifle range in the early afternoon on August 5, 2022,” and the remainder from a 12-gauge shotgun from public property located between the club and the plaintiff’s residences, “which land appears to sometimes be used by the public for hunting and/or shooting.”
It is important that the court consider the sound testing as evidence at the upcoming hearing, Mr. Seidman wrote to Justice Modelewski. He asked that the T.R.O. be modified to authorize the test.
On Aug. 14, James Catterson of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman firm, also representing the plaintiffs, wrote to Justice Modelewski in response to the gun club’s request for an expedited decision on its motion to modify the T.R.O. ahead of the postponed hearing. The request should be rejected, he wrote.
He described the proposed sound testing as “untimely and superfluous” and said that the club has set forth no proper basis for it. “It has the possibility of endangering plaintiffs,” he wrote, “which directly contravenes the entire purpose of the T.R.O.” The club has made no representations that the condition of the range has changed since the T.R.O. was imposed, nor since a Police Department inspection, “which found numerous serious deficiencies in the purported safety measures in place at the range,” he wrote.
The gun club stated that Mr. Warren would conduct the testing on Monday, one day before the now-postponed hearing, Mr. Catterson wrote. “To suggest that Mr. Warren can conduct the testing and prepare a report in less than 24 hours raises serious concerns about the reliability of the inspection and Mr. Warren’s methodology,” he wrote.
Mr. Seidman also wrote to Justice Modelewski on Aug. 14, regarding the club’s pending motion for a subpoena to be issued to the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory. His firm had been contacted by the assistant county attorney, Hope Senzer Gabor, on Aug. 9, he wrote. She advised the firm that the county attorney’s office “is prepared to provide” items sought by the subpoena, if and when it is ordered, “including the bullet that was retrieved on August 5, 2022” from the Merchants Path residence. The club “requests that the court grant the motion for subpoena,” he wrote.
Whether or not Mr. Warren conducted his testing was unclear as of yesterday. He did not return a call seeking comment. Mr. Seidman wrote in an email on Tuesday that “our client does not have any comment” at this time. Neither Mr. Doyle nor Mr. Catterson replied to requests for comment.
With Reporting by Christine Sampson
