June 30, 2022 – In the ongoing “truck beach” dispute between several homeowner associations and the Town of East Hampton, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hon. Paul J. Baisley, Jr.) has issued an order on June 30, 2022 finding the Town of East Hampton and the Trustees of the Town of East Hampton “guilty of civil and criminal contempt of the Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision of February 2, 2021 and this court’s modified judgment entered April 12, 2021”.  As a penalty, the court issued the maximum fine of $239,000 against the Town and Trustees and directed them to pay the associations’ attorney’s fees.

The underlying Appellate Division decision had found that the associations owned a 4,000-foot stretch of beach in Amagansett and that the Town and Trustees did not have the power to issue permits allowing members of the public to use the associations’ beaches.  The Supreme Court then granted a judgment with an injunction restricting the Town and Trustees from issuing “permits purporting to authorize their holders to operate and park vehicles” on the associations’ beaches.

After holding a hearing, the Supreme Court concluded “that the Town Code still permits vehicles on plaintiffs’ properties and that the Town has continued to issue permits allowing permit holders to drive on Truck Beach,” in derogation of the injunction.  In a scathing rebuke of the Town and Trustees, the court found that they “have clearly demonstrated an appallingly studied indifference and deliberate disobedience to the lawful and unequivocal orders of this court and the Appellate Division.”

February 22, 2022 – The Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hon. Christopher Modelewski) has upheld a zoning board’s decision and rejected certain neighbors’ Article 78 proceeding in Porges v. Village of Westhampton Beach Zoning Board of Appeals.  The neighbors had commenced the proceeding to seek to annul the zoning board’s decision, which had granted the applicant variances to allow some additions to be built on the waterfront Dune Road property.   The neighbors’ challenge centered around some language in a prior zoning board decision, which the neighbors claimed limited the owner’s ability to seek variances in the future.  The court rejected the neighbors’ claim and found that the zoning board’s decision “was rational and supported by evidence in the record.”

July 28, 2021 — The Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hon. William J. Condon) has dismissed an action for specific performance of a $22 million real estate agreement, in Real-X Realty, LLC v. Crest Bellport, LLC, Suffolk Index No. 606831-2021.   The property was owned by two co-owners, each with a 50% interest.  The prospective purchaser brought an action to to enforce a contract that was signed only by one of the co-owners, even though the signature line for the second owner was left blank.  The court found that the partially-signed document was unenforceable, “because the signature of only one party to a non-severable contract is insufficient to create an enforceable agreement that would bind all.”

June 16, 2021 — The Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hon. Joseph C. Pastoressa) has granted summary judgment and awarded the seller of a hotel property the downpayment of $360,000 as liquidated damages, in Front & Third, LLC v. Blue Flag Capital, LLC, Index No. 606169/2020.  The decision involved an application of the rules regarding the establishment of a “time of essence” closing in New York.  As the court found, the seller in this case properly established a time of essence closing by providing the purchaser with notice and a reasonable time to close.  The purchaser’s failure to appear at the closing therefore amounted to a default, entitling the seller to retain the downpayment.