A New York Supreme Court judge has ruled on a significant zoning dispute involving Huntting Hospitality LLC and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton. The case, Huntting Hospitality LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of E. Hampton, Index No. 628800/2024, was decided on April 10, 2026, by Judge Joseph C. Pastoressa. The ruling affects the future of the Huntting Inn, a historic establishment that has been at the center of a legal battle over its expansion plans.
The Huntting Inn, which includes a restaurant and guest rooms, is classified as a pre-existing, nonconforming commercial use in a residential zoning district. The case arose when Huntting Hospitality applied for a building permit to add a pool, spa, patio, covered porch, and an elevator to the Inn. The Village's code enforcement officer denied the application, stating that any expansion of a nonconforming use required a variance. Following this denial, Huntting Hospitality appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which granted some of the requested changes but denied the pool variances, claiming it lacked the authority to approve them under local zoning laws.
The dispute escalated when Huntting Hospitality filed a hybrid proceeding in the Supreme Court, challenging the ZBA's decision. The plaintiff argued that the ZBA's refusal to grant the pool variances was arbitrary and capricious, violated their constitutional rights, and constituted an unlawful taking of property. The case was initially removed to federal court but was later sent back to state court, where it was heard by Judge Pastoressa.
In his ruling, Judge Pastoressa addressed the claims made by Huntting Hospitality. The court ruled that the ZBA's decision to deny the pool variances was a final determination, allowing Huntting Hospitality to challenge it in court. The judge stated, "The ZBA's holding that it has no authority to entertain the pool variance application is a final determination." This ruling clarified that the ZBA's refusal to consider the pool variances was not merely procedural but a substantive denial that could be reviewed by the court.
However, the court also dismissed several claims made by Huntting Hospitality. Notably, it ruled that the plaintiff did not have a protected property interest in the pool variances because the ZBA had discretion in granting or denying such requests. Judge Pastoressa noted, "The discretion of zoning boards of appeals in granting or denying variances from zoning codes is well-settled," indicating that the ZBA's authority to deny the variances was consistent with established legal principles.
The court further dismissed claims related to due process violations and equal protection, stating that Huntting Hospitality failed to demonstrate that it was treated differently from similarly situated properties. The judge pointed out that the ZBA's treatment of the Huntting Inn was not discriminatory when compared to other establishments, such as the Hedges Inn, which had received favorable treatment regarding similar requests.
This ruling has significant implications for Huntting Hospitality and other businesses in East Hampton. The decision reinforces the authority of local zoning boards to regulate land use and highlights the challenges that property owners face when seeking to expand nonconforming uses in residential areas. Huntting Hospitality's plans for the Inn remain uncertain as a result of this ruling, which restricts their ability to add the proposed pool and related amenities.
Looking ahead, Huntting Hospitality has the option to appeal the court's decision, although details on whether they will pursue this route were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar zoning disputes in the area, influencing how local governments handle requests for variances in residential districts.
As this case unfolds, it underscores the complex relationship between local zoning laws and property rights, particularly in regions like East Hampton, where the balance between residential character and commercial interests is often contentious.