East Hampton Town, Fishermen Lose Another Round in 'Truck Beach' Legal Fight

Four-wheel-drive vehicle owners lost another round in the court fight over “Truck Beach” this month, as the judge who has reviewed the case locally threw out two challenges brought by East Hampton Town, the East Hampton Town Trustees and a group of local fishermen that sought to protect their right to access a stretch of beach in Amagansett.

In a ruling released on Friday, March 17, State Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley dismissed the two cases, both of which had argued that fishermen should still be able to access the 4,000-foot stretch of beach because a “reservation” in the original 19th century deed for the property allowed for fishermen to continue accessing the shoreline to launch surf dories and land fish.

“A review of the pleadings in these matters reveals that the town and Trustees are in fact attempting to relitigate the very same issues that have been litigated in the 2009 matter for thirteen years,” Baisley wrote in his brief decision that primarily comprised explanations of legal precedent and prior case law. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, the town and Trustees may not institute a new action in order to circumvent an unfavorable decision it received in a previous matter.”

In February 2021, a panel of State Appellate Division judges ruled that the beach east of Napeague Lane was, in fact, privately owned by the homeowners associations of the neighborhoods landward of the dunes by virtue of the meets and bounds in the 1882 deed for the sale of the property by the East Hampton Town Trustees to developer Arthur Benson.

But in its ruling, the appellate panel ordered that the reservation allowing fishermen to access the beach remain in place and described its caveats as allowing access “for fishing and fishing-related purposes.”

The town, the Trustees and 4x4 access advocates have seized on that allowance and claimed that the reservation should mean that nearly any resident of the town should be allowed to access the beach with a vehicle, as long as they are there to fish.

But the actual wording of the reservation is written in 19th century terms and refers only to the landing of boats, spreading of nets and carting of fish. Attorneys for the homeowners have said that there is no assumed modernization of those activities that would mean the reservation applies to 4x4 vehicles that hadn’t yet been invented when the deed was inked.

The homeowners argued to Baisley that the appellate ruling did not at all leave open the question of what the deed allows, as it was part of the original lawsuit brought in 2009 by the homeowners challenging the town’s policy of allowing 4x4 vehicles to access the beach during the day in summertime.

“They seem to be arguing that the terms of the easement were never addressed in court, but there’s just no doubt that the issue of the extent of the easement was central to this case from day one,” Steve Angel, one of the attorneys who has represented the homeowners since 2009, said this week. “To say that we now have to look at it again — it’s just not going anywhere, in my opinion, and apparently Judge Baisley agrees.”

Baisley has already found the Town Board and several town officials in contempt of court for not having immediately barred access to the shoreline by vehicles following the February 2021 ruling. The town has appealed that decision to the Appellate Division also.

Angel has argued that the Appellate Division ruling is not, in fact, ambiguous about what “fishing and fishing-related purposes” means and nods to previous appellate rulings that hark to the court’s belief that such ancient documents must be applied in a literal sense, using the plain language of the documents.

Daniel Rodgers, an attorney who represented 14 fishermen that were charged with trespassing on the beach after mounting a symbolic protest in June 2021, called the conclusion that the reservation issue has been addressed “rubbish.”

“What is fishing-related activity? Why is it that everyone is working so hard to not answer that question?” Rodgers asked in a statement following the release of the decision. “That question has never been answered by any court. Is it as simple as a fishing pole and a bucket? Or is it more nuanced, such as with carts and trucks, as local fishermen have used for over a century?”

Rodgers said that the fishermen he represents plan to appeal the most recent ruling to a higher state court. East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said that he expects the town will appeal the ruling as well.

“We think it’s important to continue the effort to resolve this question,” he said. “We think it’s a very broad interpretation, and we plan on continuing to seek to protect the rights of the people of East Hampton.”

Over the winter, a Southampton Town justice dismissed the trespassing charges against the 14 fishermen because the purported owners of the beach never pressed the charges against them.

Rodgers said that apathetic approach left the beach open and accessible to any and all residents of the town, for fishing, and said that fishermen would continue to press the issue, including holding “fishing clinics” on the beach this spring.