The Supreme Court could be the next stop after a family hardware store suffered a legal defeat in its eminent domain fight against Southold Town.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ruled against Ben and Hank Brinkmann, who are battling to keep their land in Mattituck, their lawyers at the nonprofit Institute for Justice announced. The Brinkmanns intend to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
The dispute is over a parcel in the North Fork community. The Brinkmanns purchased the land at 12500 Main Road in Mattituck in 2016 to build a paint and hardware store there. Three years later, they filed for a building permit.
Months later, however, a town construction moratorium was placed on the section of Main Road where the hardware store was planned. The town then moved to seize the land through eminent domain with the aim of turning the two-acre parcel into a passive park.
“There is no dispute that the park was dreamed up on the fly simply to stop the Brinkmanns,” Institute for Justice wrote. “Evidence shows none of the planning normally associated with parks, and the town never mentioned the park to the Brinkmanns while they ran their multiyear permitting obstacle course.”
The Brinkmanns, who have five hardware stores on Long Island, sued in 2021, arguing that Southold lacked a legitimate reason to stop the construction of the store and could have purchased land for sale next door for its park. The U.S. Eastern District Court in Brooklyn tossed the Brinkmanns’ lawsuit in October 2022, though, and title for the land reportedly vested to the town.
Read more
Commercial
Tri-State
North Fork town seizes family’s land to stop project, create park
Commercial
Tri-State
Oyster Bay tries to seize properties in eminent domain claim
Commercial
Texas
The Real Estate Council opposes eminent domain use for state park
The Brinkmanns appealed, calling the town’s seizure an unconstitutional pretext to stop the hardware store. But the appeals court ruled that a pretext claim didn’t exist under federal law and that “courts do not inquire into alleged pretexts and motives.”
The dissenting judge wrote that “the court’s decision grants governments virtually unlimited power over private property — as long as the governments are willing to act in bad faith.”
“Our case is about defending the right of everyone’s family business to stay in business when they play by the rules,” Hank Brinkmann said in a statement.