But the ruling doesn't permanently resolve the case, and even says the town's zoning on the topic of what constitutes an airport is "ambiguous."
"I'm working with my attorney to evaluate my legal options," said Walter Gezari, adding that he has not landed a helicopter in Calverton since an injunction was issued last year, and instead lands at Mattituck Airport. He said at a recent Suffolk County Legislature meeting that he uses the helicopter to transport clients to his Greenport business, STIDD Systems, a marine manufacturing company.
Riverhead Town went to court early last year to prevent Mr. Gezari from landing his private helicopter on a 10-acre parcel he owns next to his home, also on Deep Hole Drive, and in July 2008, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti granted the town a preliminary injunction barring the use of the property for helicopter takeoffs and landings.
That ruling was appealed, and a four-judge state Appellate Division panel edict last week not only upheld the preliminary injunction, but denied Mr. Gezari's request for a judge to decide the case in his favor -- and dismiss the town's grievances -- without a trial.
The appeals court ruling, however, did not decide the ultimate fate of the issue.
"What the court has ruled is that the status quo is maintained pending a trial on the merits in state Supreme Court," said Dan McCormick, the deputy town attorney handling the case for Riverhead. "This will continue to bar Mr. Gezari from landing and taking off on his property in the meantime."
He said the appeals court wasn't asked to rule on the overall case, only on the preliminary injunction and the request for a judgment to dismiss the case.
The town had argued that, according to zoning, Mr. Gezari could not use the two parcels as an "airport" without a special permit.
Town code defines "airport" as a "landing area used regularly by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo or for the landing and takeoff of aircraft being used for personal or training purposes."
Mr. Gezari argued that the use of the property did not fall within the definition of "airport" since they used the helicopter for personal transportation purposes and because the landings and takeoffs did not occur on a "regular" basis.
"Therefore, the defendants' use of the properties for landings and takeoffs of the helicopter bears some indicia [sign] of regularity," the ruling states.
However, the ruling also says the town's definition of "airport" is "ambiguous," and quotes a previous case in stating that "any ambiguity in the language must be resolved in favor of the defendants as property owners. But it also states that the town demonstrated that the use of the property for helicopter takeoffs and landings "posed safety hazards and noise concerns," and that Mr. Gezari "did not show any hardship associated with the loss of the land" for use in helicopter landings.
tgannon@timesreview.com