Dismiss Runway Suit; Operators' Suit Stands

East Hampton Town has had mixed results in two airport-related lawsuits this month. Last week a State Supreme Court justice dismissed a suit brought by a group of residents who opposed the reconstruction of the main runway at the East Hampton Town Airport, a project that has generated one of the town's most longstanding debates.

Earlier this month, a Federal judge has dismissed portions of a $29.5-million lawsuit concerning the administration of the airport, while allowing some of the claims it makes to go to trial.

The residents group had filed suit against the town last winter and later sought a preliminary injunction in an attempt to prevent the reconstruction from moving forward.

Called Speculation

They argued that the project had not been subjected to the proper environmental review and that it would increase air traffic and noise at the airport, turning the community airport into a "jetport."

State Supreme Court Justice Donald Kitson, who had denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissed the case against the town. He found that the residents' claims of increased noise from class C and D business jets and of damage to the environment were "mere speculation."

The residents are not likely to appeal, said one of their attorneys, Pat Trunzo 3d of East Hampton.

"Even if we appeal it, once this thing is built no judge in the world is going to be able to unbuild it," Mr. Trunzo said. "We may prove to have been right, but I don't know that it will matter. . . ."

Similar Case

He criticized the court for noting many inconsistencies in the town's position but not addressing them, and said Justice Kitson ignored a decision in a similar case in Westchester where the court said certain projects at an airport could not proceed without preparation of an environmental impact study.

The main runway had been 75 feet wide with 121/2 feet of crumbling pavement on either side. The reconstruction will replace that crumbling pavement with usable pavement, and runway opponents maintain that this is a significant change.

"The crowning irony," Mr. Trunzo said, "is the fact that the judge says the aircraft we're complaining about are already using the airport." He said class C and D business jets shouldn't be using the airport because it doesn't "meet the safety standards for them."

"Unsafe Airport"

"It's an unsafe airport in terms of these aircraft already and now we're going to invite more of them in there," he said. Eventually, Mr. Trunzo thinks the town will be pushed to comply with clear-zone standards that have been set aside for now. "Nobody can tell us this [project] is without impact."

"Clearly we're not talking about a jetport," said Anthony Darienzo of Huntington, the attorney for the East Hampton Airport Property Owners Association. He said the runway's improvement was never designed to attract new planes, but to improve safety conditions for those using the airport.

"We thought the suit was unreasonable in the first place," Mr. Darienzo said. "The judge's decision supported our opinion."

Federal Suit

The Federal suit was brought by Sound Aircraft Services, Shoreline Aviation, and Action Air against East Hampton Town and a host of other defendants.

Sound, one of two fixed-base operators at the airport, and the two associated charter companies filed a Federal civil rights suit last November naming the Town Board as a whole, its 1997 Republican members individually and as Council people, Myers Aero Services and Myers Aero Fuel, Ben Krupinski, and his company East Hampton Airlines.

Sound, Shoreline, and Action Air alleged that "political and personal favoritism" motivated the 1996 decision to lease a town-owned hangar at the airport to Myers Aero Services and Mr. Krupinski's Aviation Resources.

"Influence" Charged

The litigants noted that Mr. Krupinski and his wife, Bonnie Bistrian Krupinski, are supporters of and contributors to the local Republican Party and claimed that were it not for the "influence" they exercise over the Republicans, Sound and Shoreline would have won the lease.

They claimed the town helped Aviation Resources and Myers to join forces and allowed the two to resubmit a higher bid for the hangar space, after the bids had been opened and reviewed, while not allowing Sound and Shoreline to do the same.

The plaintiffs said subsequent town decisions regarding commuter ramp space and general day-to-day airport activities deprived them of equal protection under the law by giving Myers and Mr. Krupinski's companies an unfair advantage.

To Prove Motivation

This they asserted, violates anti-discrimination provisions of the Federal Aviation Act, which the town is bound to follow because it accepts Federal funds for the airport.

Judge Thomas Platt ruled that "an issue of fact exists with regards to Knobel's, McCaffrey's, and Ber nard's motivation and whether their actions were reasonable in light of Krupinski's alleged political influence." He also declined to dismiss the claims against them individually "at this point in the litigation."

"We're very pleased with the decision," said Sound's attorney, Paul R. Levenson of the Manhattan firm of Kaplan, Gottbetter & Levenson. The judge validated some of his clients' claims and, Mr. Levenson said, "We're now in a posture to move forward."

Called "Erroneous"

"The decision is erroneous as a matter of law," said Richard Cahn, the town's special counsel in the suit. He said, "There is no basis to believe that the independent council people sued were interfering with the protected constitutional rights of Sound."

"I don't think either side can claim a victory," Mr. Cahn added.

The judge also dismissed one of the plaintiff's main claims - that the town's award of the hangar lease to the other company deprived Sound and Shoreline of their right to due process under the Constitution.

"Entitlement to a contract is not created by submission of a bid because a municipality can either accept or reject the bid," Judge Platt wrote. He said that a bid for a contract does not qualify as a constitutionally protected property interest.

However, he did not dismiss an equal protection claim relating to the bidding or an anti-discrimination claim relating to both bidding and the proposed allocation of ramp space. Judge Platt noted that "The alleged violations in the instant case, if proven, may constitute unfair discrimination. . . ."

Ramp Space Issue

Sound also alleged that the town and Town Board violated a 1995 airport operating agreement and lease when it reduced Sound's commuter ramp space. The judge did not dismiss this claim, but Mr. Cahn has asked Sound's attorney to withdraw it.

The Town Board never acted on the proposed change in commuter ramp space and has since reconfigured the space so that Sound has significantly more than it was slated to have last fall.

"The town has made a good-faith effort to address their concern," the town attorney, Cynthia Shea, said Tuesday. She and Mr. Cahn believe the ramp space issue is moot.

Judge Platt dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, as well, because the contract in question was a master agreement between the town and the Federal Aviation Administration. As a third party, the plaintiffs "do not have standing to assert a breach of contract."

CARISSA KATZ