Just in time for beach season, the Suffolk County Supreme Court, in a June 12 decision, ruled against East Hampton Village, ordering it to reinstate a Main Beach parking permit and beach locker to David Ganz after they were revoked last June by Marcos Baladron, the village administrator.
Justice James F. Quinn said Mr. Baladron simply didn’t have the authority to take the action.
Mr. Baladron revoked the permit after the village accused Mr. Ganz of a history of reckless driving, and specifically in Lot 1 on June 2, 2024, a charge Mr. Ganz consistently denied. Instead, he said the village was acting out of spite, angry at his public criticisms during village board meetings.
“The court finds the village administrator has no authority to revoke a permit or locker assignment and no authority exists to revoke a Village of East Hampton beach parking or Main Beach Pavilion parking and locker permit and in doing so the village’s actions were arbitrary and capricious,” Justice Quinn wrote in his decision.
“The village code does not vest the village administrator with the authority to revoke beach parking or locker permits. Further, the village code does not speak to the revocation of beach parking and locker permits for any of its beaches or the Main Beach Pavilion,” he added.
Instead, village police or code enforcement officers could have handled the alleged actions of Mr. Ganz with a ticket. If he caused property damage, the judge said the village could have sought redress.
His decision highlighted the administrative nature of Mr. Baladron’s role in issuing permits and emphasized that he cannot be involved with enforcement.
“We disagree with the judge’s decision,” Mr. Baladron said in a statement. “My actions were consistent with those of my predecessors. The village will be appealing the decision, reinforcing our stance that the village must have the legal authority to take necessary action when the safety of our staff is jeopardized. If any individual consistently endangers or harasses village employees, the village reserves the right to revoke beach passes to uphold public safety.”
Mr. Ganz has had a Main Beach parking permit and locker for the last 16 years.
On June 2, 2024, he entered the lot and claims that as he was doing so, another car was leaving, which forced him to move his car to the right. “He states in avoidance of the other vehicle he may have struck something,” read the court papers.
He parked, entered the pavilion, and left. Hours later, the police arrived at his house and presented him with tickets for leaving the scene of an accident and causing damage to public property. Less than a week later, he received a letter from Mr. Baladron letting him know that as of June 30, 2024, his parking pass and locker permit were revoked.
Judge Quinn did not address the aspects of the lawsuit in which Mr. Ganz argued he didn’t receive due process, saying that complaint couldn’t be bundled. “Separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action,” he wrote. A preliminary hearing on them will be held on July 1.
Over the winter, the East Hampton Village Board discussed code changes that would impact Main Beach, many of them involving dogs. However, only a single law, one amending Chapter 77 of the village code, that gave the village the right to revoke any beach permit or pass, received a public hearing. The hearing was held on Feb. 24, received no comment, and was closed. Unanimously, the village board adopted the law at its March 21 meeting. It was amended yesterday.
It clarifies the process for revoking a permit. The offending permit holder will receive a letter from Mr. Baladron, notifying them of the revocation and inviting them to appear at an upcoming village board meeting. The permit holder will hear the case against them and have a chance to defend themselves. After that, the entire board will vote on the revocation.
Anthony Palumbo, who is Mr. Ganz’s lawyer (and also a New York State senator), said the new village law could potentially be used against his client.
“They could revive this, give him the opportunity to be heard, and make a new decision. However, I hope they don’t, and we can move on from this. He’s missed a summer and a half. That’s penalty enough,” he said. “Based on the video I saw of his actions that day, there is no violation. I hope we can all move on and Mr. Ganz gets his permit back.”
The court prevented the village from transferring the permit and locker to anyone else last June 28, while the case proceeded.
Mr. Ganz, when reached over email, offered no comment on the judgment.
