Judge Says East Hampton Town In Contempt of Court, Again, for Failing To Comply With Airport Order

A Suffolk County Supreme Court judge last week ruled that East Hampton Town was in contempt of court for failing to comply with a temporary restraining order barring it from privatizing East Hampton Airport and implementing restrictions on flights at the town-owned air field.

The judge, Justice Paul Baisley, ordered the town to pay $250,000 to the plaintiffs in three lawsuits filed over the town’s attempts to rein in aircraft traffic at the airport, and will fine the town an additional $1,000 per day that the town continues to violate the order. The town also would have to reimburse the plaintiffs for their legal fees in arguing the contempt proceeding.

It is the second time that Baisley has held the town in contempt of court — both times at the suggestion of attorney James Catterson, who is himself a former state court judge and the son of a former Suffolk County district attorney.

In 2021, Baisley held the town in contempt for not having blocked 4x4 vehicles from using an Amagansett beach that a previous court ruling had declared privately owned. The judge issued a $239,000 fine in that instance — based on the same $1,000 per day fine and the judge’s determination that the town flouted the vehicle ban for 239 days – and demanded that the town pay the $389,000 in attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiffs.

The town has appealed that ruling to a higher court and says it plans to appeal this most recent one.

“The Town of East Hampton is deeply disappointed by the May 19 Suffolk County Supreme Court ruling by [Justice] Paul J. Baisley, which held the town in contempt of court and imposed penalties regarding the operation of East Hampton Town Airport,” a statement released by the town on Monday said.

“In its capacity as proprietor of East Hampton Town Airport, the Town Board has always held the belief that it had a public policy responsibility to protect local residents from the loud and disturbing effects of aircraft noise, and has sought to provide residents who are impacted with meaningful and deserved relief.”

Town officials have declined to comment further.

In February 2022, the Town Board unveiled plans to close East Hampton Airport for a short period and then reopen it as what would technically be a new airport. Doing so, attorneys for the town said, would allow the airport to be designated as a private facility and give the town the power to adopt a “prior permission required” policy for aircraft use, and set limits on the number of flights that could be made by various types of aircraft.

The town’s plans called for limiting most helicopters and all commercial aircraft to no more than one flight per day and barring the largest models of private jets.

The town initially planned to effect the switch in early March, but delayed its plans until mid May to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to put in place a number of technical changes that would allow the new airport to open with all the proper safety and guidance services from the outset.

The temporary restraining order that Baisley granted on May 16, 2022 — less than 24 hours before the town’s new flight rules were to go into effect — barred the town from closing the airport or imposing any new restrictions on its use by pilots.

But by the time the TRO was issued, the FAA had already begun the process of transitioning the airport from a public facility over which the town had only superficial control to a private one controlled by the town. The FAA said it could not reverse the move because new aviation charts and flight instructions had already been published showing the new private airport.

While the town did not impose the restrictions on flights that it had hoped to, Catterson argued that the town is still not in compliance with the court order because its attorneys continue to work on legal paths to closing the airport permanently and because the town had initially adopted some new requirements for pilots using the facility.

Baisley agreed. “On June 7, 2022, at the Town Board work session, the town’s counsel announced it was taking steps to close the airport permanently,” he wrote in his ruling, which, like most of his rulings in town cases, was relatively short for a legal opinion and consisted primarily of repurposed background detail on the case. “This action directly defies the TRO, which expressly prohibits the town from closing the airport or taking any steps to effectuate the closure of the airport.”

The judge nodded to instances of the town imposing new rules on aviators, such as requiring insurance and indemnification forms in order to receive access to the airport’s new flight guidance information — even thought the FAA nullified those requirements not long after the TRO was granted, returning the guidance data to the public realm and requiring no town approvals for its use.

Attorneys for the town had tried to counter the claims arguing that their hands were tied by the FAA and that the restraining order had referred only to the airport under its previous designation, HTO, and not under the new designation assigned to it, JPX. The judge said the distinction was trivial.

The lawsuits were filed in February of last year by three aviation groups: the charter booking company Blade Air Mobility, a consortium of hangar owners at the airport and a pilots group calling itself the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open.

Each of the lawsuits are also joined by several local homeowners, primarily from neighborhoods near Montauk Airport, which some have feared would see a spike in air traffic if East Hampton imposed restrictions at its airport, but also at least one resident each from both Southampton Village and Westhampton, where airports could see more traffic if East Hampton blocked some aircraft.

Gary Herman, one of the plaintiffs, said that the members of the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open are happy with Baisley’s latest ruling in their favor.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and the Town Board being sanctioned and fined for its contemptuous actions,” he said in a message on Friday.

Catterson’s office on Monday released a statement from the attorney that also applauded Baisley’s order.

“This is a fair and measured decision,” Catterson said. “The Town of East Hampton has a well-documented history of ignoring court orders, acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner and being held in contempt. Actions have consequences and we are hopeful that the town will immediately cease its new use restrictions and comply with the court’s order.”

Catterson noted that while the town has paid for its legal battles over the airport with airport revenues — which come from landing fees and the sale of fuel — the judge barred it from using those funds to cover the contempt fines.

After granting the TRO in May, Baisley issued a broader injunction in October that barred the town from adopting the planned flight restrictions on the basis that it had not complied with state review standards in crafting the scheme — primarily because the town planned to impose the new restrictions on an experimental basis and then study the impacts they had on flight traffic in the region as a tool for measuring how limiting flights into East Hampton might affect other airports, before making the changes permanent.

Baisley said the analysis of impacts had to be done before the rules were adopted.

Even though it has appealed that ruling — a process that is likely to take up to two years or more — the town last fall began anew the effort to introduce restrictions on flights, through a process that it says will address the shortcomings Baisley spotlighted in his ruling and said it plans to forge ahead with plans for flight restrictions in preparation for a future date when they hope the Baisley decision will be reversed by a higher court.