An East Hampton Village resident who successfully sued the village for revoking his permit to park in one of the lots at Main Beach and ordering him to clear out his locker at the Main Beach pavilion suggested last week that he might sue the village for defamation of character, libel, and slander.
The village alleged that on June 2, 2024, David Ganz did not follow protocol for entering the parking lot and endangered a beach employee by recklessly driving into the lot. The entrance to Main Beach’s Lot 1, adjacent to the pavilion, is blocked by a traffic cone. Permit holders wait by the cone until an attendant verifies they have a beach pass and moves the cone, allowing them to enter. The village alleged that Mr. Ganz did not wait for the 16-year-old attendant on duty that day, but instead sped around the cone, brushing up against a wall, and running over and damaging a cable.
Mr. Ganz’s account of the incident differed: He said that he had stopped, realized a car was exiting the lot, and moved over as the car passed, before driving to his parking space. Hours later, police officers went to his residence and gave him tickets for leaving the scene of an accident and disobeying a traffic control device.
Mr. Ganz sued the village, claiming that it had violated state and federal due process and equal protection laws. The village tried to settle the case, but, according to Lisa Perillo, the village attorney, Mr. Ganz was not interested in a settlement. Early in 2025, Mr. Ganz’s criminal defense attorney obtained videos of the incident taken from cameras affixed to the Main Beach pavilion. They depict Mr. Ganz approaching behind a line of cars and, when a car in front of his slows as it approaches the entrance, turning prematurely into the lot and appearing to drive over the curb as the attendant walks toward his car to inspect his sticker. As Mr. Ganz moves into the lot, his car is visibly jostled as it brushes a retaining wall. He then parks in the near-empty lot and leaves his vehicle, walking toward the pavilion.
Mr. Ganz has maintained that village officials sought to discredit him, revoking his pass and locker as retaliation for publicly criticizing the board at its meetings.
In June 2025, the Suffolk County Supreme Court ruled against the village, finding that it had no authority to revoke a permit or locker assignment and ordering it to reinstate Mr. Ganz’s parking permit and beach locker. The village’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, Justice James F. Quinn said. The village has appealed the decision. In March 2025, the board unanimously adopted a code amendment giving the village the right to revoke any beach permit or pass.
At the board’s April 22 meeting, Mr. Ganz said that he had hoped to present the videos during the meeting but was rebuffed. Instead, he displayed printed still frames from them and announced an email address to which the public could obtain the full videos, which depict the incident from three different angles. “This has been eating me up,” he told the board, holding up the printed images to those in the room as he described the June 2024 incident.
During his remarks, Ms. Perillo interrupted to say that he had exceeded the allotted three minutes for public comment. “I’m going to ask you to address the board with any public comments,” rather than the audience, she added.
Mr. Ganz asked to be allowed to complete his presentation. “You’ve been burning me in the press the last two years,” he said. “At least I can have my say.” There was no traffic cone at the lot’s entrance that day, he said. Accusations that he had failed to stop and wait for the attendant to approach his car were untrue, he said, and “there was no damage to my car whatsoever” from contact with the retaining wall.
Again, Ms. Perillo asked him to summarize and conclude his remarks. “Summarize?” Mr. Ganz asked. ‘I’d like to sue for defamation of character, libel, and slander.” The village will not comment on pending litigation, Ms. Perillo said. “I don’t expect you to comment,” was the reply. “These are my comments. . . . I want this to go away. This is ridiculous. You’ve been appealing it. The judge already called it malicious and capricious. Why are you spending taxpayers’ dollars to even continue with this?”
“We’re not commenting on this because there’s pending litigation on this matter,” Mayor Jerry Larsen told Mr. Ganz, “and I believe there’s still local court hearings pending for your traffic violations.”
“There already was a judgment,” Mr. Ganz said. “You’re appealing the judgment.”
With Reporting by Christopher Gangemi
