Lawyer files notice of claim against judge in Truck Beach case
Attorney Daniel Rodgers, left, and Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley. Credit: Thomas Lambui / David Pokress
A Southampton lawyer who had faced potential disciplinary action after a state Supreme Court justice charged he misled and misinformed his clients has filed a notice of claim signaling a lawsuit against the judge and the state court system.
The notice says he will seek $25 million for alleged defamation and libel.
The notice filed by attorney Daniel Rodgers on Monday followed former Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley’s referral of Rodgers to a state grievance committee after news reports quoted Rodgers saying his clients were free to fish on a contested oceanfront stretch in Napeague known as Truck Beach.
Several East Hampton Town officials and trustees are facing civil and criminal contempt charges after rulings by Baisley in the case, which largely have favored homeowners with property rights to the beach.
Baisley retired Aug. 31, the day after he signed a ruling referring Rodgers to appear before the Grievance Committee of the Tenth Judicial District for “disciplinary consideration” for demonstrating a “continuing brazen pattern of misinforming and misleading his clients” on the status of the case.
Baisley wrote that Rodgers has “demonstrated disrespect to the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division,” which have issued rulings that East Hampton Town could no longer issue permits for driving on Truck Beach after the state Appellate Division affirmed the stretch is owned by its nearby residents.
But Rodgers, in the notice of claim that he filed on his own behalf, pushed back at Baisley, saying the retired judge’s “negligent actions and conduct” have resulted in “damages and significant harm” to him, including financial, reputational, professional and “personal harm.”
The filing also claims as potential defendants the state Unified Court System and the eCourts system, which continues to post Baisley’s Aug. 30 order. Rodgers said that any recommendations to the Grievance Committee are required by law to be confidential.
A person who answered the phone at Baisley’s Huntington home said the former judge was not available.
Tim Finnerty, a public information officer for the Suffolk County Courts, said that while he was familiar with the Truck Beach case, he had not seen the notice of claim and could not directly comment on it. Generally, such cases involving the court system would be litigated by the state Attorney General's Office, he said, though the court’s Office of Legal Counsel may monitor the case.
A copy of an Oct. 3 letter from the Grievance Committee advises Rodgers that the committee “has no pending investigations against you.”
Rodgers has represented 14 fishermen whose families have collectively used the beach for centuries for commercial fishing, and he led two protests on the beach in an attempt to assert that a “reservation” contained in the 1880s-era deed to the beach allowed for fishing and “fishing-related activities.”
Rodgers noted that neither he nor his clients are a party to the case in state Supreme Court under which Baisley issued the ruling. A separate class-action complaint filed by Rodgers and the East Hampton Town Trustees has been dismissed.
The notice of claim states Baisley should have written directly to the Grievance Committee rather than issue the order publicly, charging that public posting of the order with the disciplinary request was a “clear violation” of a state judicial rule requiring confidentiality of grievance complaints. He noted stories in several news sites, including Newsday, of the judge’s order.
Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.
