Judge throws out Riverhead lawsuit against Southampton over Riverside sewer district

Riverhead Town’s lawsuit against Southampton Town over the Riverside Sewer District was flushed down the toilet by a Suffolk County Supreme Court judge yesterday.

Justice Paul Hensley dismissed Riverhead’s lawsuit, ruling for Southampton Town on every point of law argued by Southampton in its motion to dismiss the suit. 

Riverhead Town did not file any response to Southampton’s motion to dismiss, despite six extensions of time to file it, beginning in December. The most recent extension date of Sept. 5 passed without a response or a request for another extension.

Riverhead Town Attorney Erik Howard said this morning he is reserving comment until he is able to confer with outside counsel Steven Barshov about the decision.

The judge ruled that Riverhead’s lawsuit was “time-barred” because it was not filed after a 30-day limit mandated by Southampton local law. 

The judge also ruled that Riverhead lacks standing to bring an action challenging Southampton’s compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court cited a New York State Court of Appeals 1991 decision that established a restrictive standing requirement for SEQRA challenges. In that case, the state’s highest court, ruled that legal standing to bring a SEQRA challenge requires a plaintiff to demonstrate “special injury” and specific or direct environmental harm.

“Repeatedly in public hearings, Riverhead maintained that the project was a positive one for the environment,” the judge wrote. 

Also, Riverhead failed to name a necessary party — the County of Suffolk. The relief requested cannot be granted without input from Suffolk County the owners of the County Center. The failure to also name Suffolk County as a party requires dismissal,” the judge ruled.

Lastly, Riverhead’s complaint failed to state a cause of action under the N.Y. State Constitution, as alleged. 

Riverhead claimed that because its sewage treatment plant is operating “at capacity,” it needs the 200,000 gallons per day used by or reserved for the county complex to serve Riverhead Town residents. In particular, Riverhead argued, it needs to provide sewage treatment for its “substantial low income and racial/ethnic minority residents.” Because the treatment plant is “at capacity,”  Riverhead said, those residents are being denied the “right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment” guaranteed by the N.Y. State Constitution’s “Green Amendment.”  The amendment took effect on Jan. 1, 2022, after voters overwhelmingly approved it on Nov. 2, 2021.

“The Riverside Sewer District and the new Sewer Treatment Plant, by all accounts. increase a healthy environment and have a positive impact,” the judge ruled, dismissing that cause of action asserted by Riverhead.

Riverhead filed the lawsuit in August 2024 in an attempt to force Southampton to include the county center complex in Riverside within the boundaries of a new sewer district created by Southampton to serve the Riverside hamlet. Southampton established the RIverside sewer district last May to protect the Peconic Estuary by replacing old cesspools currently serving existing homes and businesses in Riverside and as an essential component of Southampton Town’s Riverside revitalization plan, which Southampton adopted in 2015.

Southampton Town Supervisor Maria Moore said last night she was “pleased” by the court’s decision.  

“I’ve maintained a positive working relationship with Supervisor Hubbard in spite of the lawsuit, but it’s good to have the litigation in the rear view mirror as we each continue to address the concerns of our respective communities,” Moore said.

The Riverhead Sewer District has accepted and treated wastewater from the Suffolk County complex in Riverside — which is outside the Riverhead Town district — since county offices first opened there in 1969, when some county offices relocated there from downtown Riverhead. Over the years since, the Riverside complex has been expanded, including an expanded county jail and a multistory criminal court building.

Riverhead’s sewage treatment plant currently treats about 100,000 gallons per day of sewage generated by the county complex in Riverside, and must reserve an additional 100,000 gallons of its capacity for the complex under state regulations, according to Riverhead Town’s court filings. 

A separate dispute over the county’s reliance on the Riverhead sewage treatment plant for treatment of wastewater from the county center, jail ad court complex in Riverside gave rise to two lawsuits brought against the town by the county.  

A State Supreme Court judge in January ruled that Riverhead Town illegally overcharged Suffolk County for wastewater treatment services provided to the Riverside county complex from 2018 to 2021.

State Supreme Court Justice Maureen Liccione ruled that the resolutions establishing the out-of-district rates were “arbitrary and capricious” and “had no rational basis in the record.” 

MORE COVERAGE: Court rules for Suffolk County in sewer rate case claiming overcharges by Riverhead Town for county’s Riverside complex

Riverhead Town On Jan. 28 filed a notice of appeal, seeking to overturn the judge’s findings. The town’s outside counsel in that matter, Frank Isler, has requested two extensions of time for filing the town’s brief and supporting papers — most recently on Sept. 4, seeking a 30-day extension of a Sept. 26 deadline.

The attorney for Suffolk County, in a March 10 letter to the trial court judge concerning additional briefings ordered by the judge in the county’s second action — challenging the out-of-district rates set by the town for 2022 and later — said the parties were engaged in negotiations to resolve their dispute.  “We believe that the requested extension of time will enable the parties to conclude these negotiations and determine whether additional briefing is necessary,” wrote attorney Joseph Macy, requesting an extension to July 1.

On July 8, the attorneys for both parties signed a stipulation agreeing that the county’s second action would be withdrawn and that the “ultimate final decision and order of the court of last resort” on the validity or invalidity of Riverhead’s out-of-district rate formula being challenged in the county’s first action (rates for 2018 to 2021) would apply to the rates set after 2021.