NEWPORT -- A Superior Court judge rejected a claim yesterday that Newport exceeded its authority when it entered an agreement with the owners of Waites Wharf saying that the lawsuit came before the court in an improper form and was not valid because the plaintiff was not a party to the agreement.
This decision is just the latest in the long-running and contentious debate over the future of the wharf and public access in the area.
In the lawsuit, Elizabeth A. Meyer, the founder of the International Yacht Restoration School, and nine other property owners along Newport Harbor, argue that the city exceeded its authority when it entered into a consent agreement on May 4, 2000, with Waites Wharf owners, Thomas B. Abruzes and Orlando A. Papleo, both of Scarsdale, N.Y.
In the agreement, the city consented to a reconfigured marina plan, with a larger, relocated public dinghy dock and with gates that are locked overnight to certain docks.
The petitioners wanted the court to protect public access rights to Newport Harbor by "rescinding, declaring void or vacating" the consent agreement.
In his decision, Judge Mark A. Pfeiffer said that the state "Supreme Court had not yet recognized the viability of a suit that seeks to nullify a prior consent judgment, particularly when parties who were absent from the original litigation commence the suit."
Robert M. Duffy, the lawyer for Meyer and the other plaintiffs, said his clients will probably appeal.
"This issue belongs in the Supreme Court. There was no case on print that the judge could use to guide him."
Meyer and her co-plaintiffs also argued that entry of the consent judgment was erroneous because the city's lawyer did not have any authorization from the City Council to enter into the judgment.
Pfeiffer wrote that while the attorney might not have acted legally, the city and the other parties in the consent judgment, did not intentionally deceive the court with any false representation of the facts.
"Determinative of this issue is the plain fact that a judgment of this Court may not be collaterally attacked for an error of law, however egregious," Pfeiffer wrote.
Pfeiffer also rejected a claim that public access was being denied. He wrote that there is currently no denial and saying that the plaintiffs will be adversely affected in the future because of the consent agreement is no basis for a judicial action.
City Solicitor and Acting Town Manager Joseph J. Nicholson Jr. said after the ruling that there are other venues where this issue should be resolved including and ongoing hearing with the state Coastal Resources Management Council."It's a lawsuit that never should have been brought. This is not the forum to deal with it," Nicholson said. "Going into different corners and coming out swinging never accomplishes anything."
