Judge orders cancellation of CAT property claim on vast Calverton industrial site

A State Supreme Court justice has directed the Suffolk County Clerk to cancel Calverton Aviation & Technology’s notice of pendency against Riverhead Town’s land in the Enterprise Park at Calverton.

The filing tied CAT’s lawsuit to the property itself and, unless an appellate court puts the order on hold, its cancellation would clear the way for the town to market the land.

In a judgment signed March 24 and docketed March 30, Justice David Reilly ordered the county clerk to cancel the notice of pendency within 30 days.

The case centers on the town’s 2023 termination of its agreement to sell roughly 1,644 acres at EPCAL to CAT, an affiliate of Triple Five Worldwide for redevelopment. CAT sued to challenge the actions that led to the deal’s collapse and to preserve its claim to the property, but Reilly in February dismissed all but one of those claims. The only claim left standing alleges that the Town of Riverhead wrongfully interfered with CAT’s contractual relationship with the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency.

The judgment, submitted by the town, states that there are no remaining claims that would require the town to sell the roughly 1,644 acres of land to CAT and no remaining claims that would directly affect title to or possession of the property. It also says there are no remaining claims against the town Community Development Agency or the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency.

CAT submitted its own proposed judgment to the court, omitting the cancellation of the notice of pendency. In a letter to the court, CAT’s attorneys argued that the court’s decision last month did not address the notice of pendency and the town should be required to make a separate motion seeking cancellation of the filing. 

Reilly’s judgment also formally narrowed the case caption to name only the Town of Riverhead as defendant, reflecting that the CDA and RIDA are no longer parties to any surviving claim.

CAT on March 26 filed a notice of appeal with the trial court, seeking reversal of the ruling to the extent it dismissed its claims.

The town filed a notice of cross-appeal on March 30. The town’s filing seeks review of the portion of Reilly’s Feb. 27 decision that allowed one of CAT’s claims to stand— the claim that the town wrongly interfered with CAT’s contractual relations. In its informational statement, the town argues that claim should also have been dismissed because, it says, there can be no tortious interference claim without an underlying breach of contract by RIDA.

The underlying Feb. 27 ruling had largely adopted the town’s position on the dismissed claims. Reilly found, among other things, that CAT’s remaining claim for tortious interference was adequately pleaded, but dismissed the other causes of action challenging the agreements and resolutions that led to the town’s 2023 termination of the EPCAL sale contract.

What happens next on the property issue will likely depend on whether CAT obtains a stay from the appellate court, either putting the judgment on hold or keeping the notice of pendency in place until the appeal is decided.