Riverhead appeals court dismissal of Riverside sewer lawsuit

Riverhead Town officials filed a notice of appeal on Tuesday after a Suffolk County judge tossed out their lawsuit against Southampton over its proposed sewer district for the Riverside hamlet. 

The appeal follows a ruling in favor of Southampton by the Hon. Paul M. Hensley, who found that Riverhead filed their complaint too late, lacked legal standing on some issues and failed to include Suffolk County as a “necessary party” in the project.

Riverside, one of Suffolk’s poorest communities, sits on the edge of downtown Riverhead, but is in Southampton. The proposed sewer treatment plant would handle 400,000 gallons of wastewater daily to support Southampton’s massive high-density development plans — an essential part of its decade-old Riverside Revitalization Action Plan. 

Riverhead officials fear the project would overwhelm their own planning efforts and burden the Riverhead school district, which serves Riverside students. They filed the lawsuit in August 2024 to force Southampton to reconsider the project.

A key issue was Southampton’s decision not to include the Suffolk County Center in the new sewer district. Since the late 1960s, Riverhead’s sewer system has served the county complex for a fee, requiring the town to reserve a 200,000 gallons per day of capacity.

Riverhead officials say their district is now operating at capacity and is unable to serve the needs created by the significant new downtown development in recent years.

The judge rejected Riverhead’s arguments on multiple grounds. He found the town filed its complaint after a 30-day deadline mandated by Southampton local law, calling it “timed-barred.” He also said Riverhead lacked standing to challenge Southampton’s environmental review and noted the town had previously called the project “positive for the environment” at public hearings.

Southampton stated in court documents the new sewer district would “positively impact the environment and reduce nitrogen within a wetland restoration area,” while protecting the Peconic Estuary.

The judge agreed with Southampton that Riverhead did not state a cause as to how the Riverside Sewer Project is in violation of the Green Amendment. 

“The Green Amendment to the New York State Constitution provides that each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthy environment,” the Hon. Hensley stated in his dismissal. “The Riverside Sewer District and the new Sewer Treatment Plant, by all accounts, increase a health environment and have a positive impact.”

The dismissal is particularly problematic for Riverhead because the town received six extensions of time to file its opposition beginning last December, but never submitted a response even after the final Sept. 6 deadline passed.

Riverhead Town attorney Erik Howard said he plans to appeal the ruling and file a motion asking the court to reconsider the case.

“It is unfortunate and concerning that our special counsel failed to timely oppose Southampton’s motion to dismiss our case,” Mr. Howard wrote in an email to the Riverhead News Review shortly after the verdict, referring to outside counsel Steven Barshov who requested the multiple extensions.

For years, Riverhead and Suffolk County have been tangled up in litigation over the fees Riverhead charges for the service, according to previous reporting.

In a separate case, a state Supreme Court judge ruled in February that Riverhead Town illegally overcharged Suffolk County for its sewer services for out-of-district facilities, such as the County Center, the Arthur Cromarty Court Complex and the county jail, from 2018 to 2021.