LAKE CLEAR — The town of Harrietstown is asking the Franklin County Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by an aviation business.

The business, Go Aviation, is a former tenant of the town-owned Adirondack Regional Airport. Go Aviation leased an 80-by-80-foot hangar at the airport for $1,800 a month, where it supplied aircraft charter, management and maintenance services to customers including Cape Air, New York State Police’s Aviation Unit, regional airlines and private fliers. The company closed shop there in July after the town did not renew its lease. Go Aviation is now accusing the town of retaliation, breaching lease agreements and is alleging a “reign of terror” by the airport manager.

The town is represented by Johnson and Laws, which filed a response to the lawsuit with the court on Jan. 12 refuting these claims. The response also argues that even if some of the alleged actions are true, they were within the airport manager and town council’s official town duties, were consistent with the lease agreement and are not subject to lawsuits.

Go Aviation’s lawyers in turn filed a legal motion on Feb. 8 opposing the town’s request to dismiss their lawsuit, further arguing their case that the business’ lease not being renewed was an act of retaliation. The town’s lawyers filed another memo on Feb. 14 supporting their motion to dismiss, refuting Go Aviation’s claims. Now, it’s up to a judge to decide if the case moves forward.

Both parties are accusing the other of omitting information, manipulating quotes of cited court cases or incorrectly citing case law.

The town argues, even if all the complaints in the lawsuit are true, the town, its legislators and its employees are immune from litigation because their actions were made within their governmental roles and maintain this was not retaliation.

Go Aviation filed the lawsuit on Dec. 5 through attorneys with Centolella Law.

Town Supervisor Jordanna Mallach is named alongside the town in the lawsuit. Go Aviation claims Mallach knew about the alleged retaliation and didn’t take action.

The town initially argued that Mallach is not subject to the court’s jurisdiction since she was not properly served papers, but this defense has since been withdrawn and Mallach is looped in to the other town defenses.

–

The lawsuit

–

Since the lease was not renewed, Go Aviation President Michael Klein said he has moved from Saranac Lake to Maine and is looking for a place to operate his business.

Go Aviation is seeking damages from the town for loss of revenue they’ve estimated at $4.29 million, plus costs of the trial.

The lawsuit alleges that the town retaliated against Go Aviation and its employees after former airport employee Rebecca Huffman filed a complaint with the state Division of Human Rights in 2020 claiming she was sexually harassed by airport staff and was unfairly discharged. The Division found that there was “probable cause” to believe these claims and the town reached a settlement with Huffman in 2021. She discontinued her claim after that. Huffman’s husband, Tyler, was a senior pilot Go Aviation employee at the time. He no longer works with the company.

Klein accused the town of breaching the lease with fines and retaliation and not renewing its lease on purpose to push his business out of the airport following the employee’s claim.

The town flatly denies this.

“The alleged acts of ‘retaliation’ have no nexus to Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman,” the town’s motion reads, calling it a “red herring.”

–

The lease

–

The town points to the lease. After the initial two-year lease, it only had a written option for one — specifically one — renewal for a five-year term. Go Aviation started the lease in 2016, and renewed in 2018, but that one renewal expired in 2023. The town’s motion said it was then the town’s discretion to renew or not renew.

“The actions taken by (the town), even as they are plead in the complaint, are compliant with the terms of this lease,” the town’s motion reads. “Once the lease terminated after the renewal, there was no provision in the lease which dictated that the town had to extend or consider extending the lease for a second time.”

Go Aviation argues that the town’s decision not to renew the lease was “arbitrary.” The town said it wanted to open the hangar to transient aircraft and that would be the best use of the land. The lease allowed the town to store transient aircraft at Go Aviation’s hangar, but this was on a case-by-case basis subject to Go Aviation’s approval and the town got 35% of the fees while Go Aviation got 65%.

Go Aviation’s lawyers say the town was acting in its capacity as a landlord and not in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, meaning it would not be immune. They argue the act of not renewing, not the plain terms of the lease, is why the lawsuit was filed, saying not renewing constitutes a civil rights violation because it was allegedly done as retaliation for the sexual harassment complaint.

But the town is arguing that it was not retaliation, but rather a “discretionary legislative action” protected by governmental immunity. It points to a vote in an April 2023 meeting and said this is “clearly” a legislative act.

“Simply categorizing the town as a landlord does not revoke the town’s status as an administrative governmental agency,” the town’s motion reads.

“I certainly stand by the decision of the town board, that that was made in the best interests of the taxpayers,” Mallach said on Tuesday.

–

Goesser

–

The lawsuit also accuses the town of outbidding Go Aviation for a hangar with taxpayer money.

Goesser Aviation Inc. leased a hangar from the town. The town had rights of first refusal to purchase any structure GAI built on this land. Go Aviation began leasing a hangar from GAI in January 2021 and moved to buy this land in May 2021 for $95,000.

The lawsuit claims when GAI owner Lutz Goesser told Hurwitch about this plan, he allegedly told Goesser to sell it to “Anyone but Go.” Klein does not have documentation of this, he said, and it is based on Goesser’s recollection of a conversation.

“Even if this hearsay comment was true, which defendants deny,” the town’s motion reads, “it is undisputed that the town had first refusal rights over this space.”

The town exercised its right of first refusal and paid $125,000 for the hangar in August 2022.

“It will take 69.8 years for the taxpayers to recover their investment (not including interest),” the lawsuit claims.

The town called this another “red herring.”

Mallach said the town has completed the purchase and the hangar is being used by the town for multiple purposes. She would not say what it is being used for for “security” reasons.

–

Lease breaches

–

The lawsuit accuses Hurwitch of enacting “predatory” fines, fining Go Aviation for lease breaches they dispute and claim were outside his power without board approval. These fines relate to the installation of internet cables and parking of vehicles. The lawsuit says the fines are for $40 a day of violation since the start of 2022 and that they have no intention of paying them.

The town argues Hurwitch’s actions were all part of his job. It refers to the complaints in the lawsuit as a “red herring.” It says the fines Hurwitch levied and decisions he made were within his scope of work, enforcing rules and ensuring safety.

The town says Go Aviation breached their lease several times.

When Go Aviation dug a line to lay an internet cable, the town said it did so without getting permission from the airport manager and without doing soil tests beforehand. The hangar grounds are part of a superfund site at the airport, which is contaminated with the toxic PFAS chemicals from firefighting foams. The town said this constitutes a breach of lease by Go Aviation, subject to termination, as well as being unlawful and dangerous.

Go Aviation was fined for parking personal vehicles on the land without approval. Other airport tenants did this, too, they point out. But the town says tenants needed approval to do this on a case-by-case basis, and Go Aviation did not have approval.

The town argues that its town council members are immune under doctrine of legislative immunity.

“Legislators are entitled to absolute immunity for their legislative activities,” the motion reads, “so long as they were acting within the ‘sphere of legitimate legislative activity.'”

The motion also argues the same for the town.

“When official action involves the exercise of discretion, a [public official] is not liable for the injurious consequences of that action even if resulting from negligence or malice,” the motion reads, quoting another ruling.

The lawsuit includes allegations that Go Aviation’s hangar was “purposely left unplowed” after storms in 2022.

The town said the snow always got plowed within 48 hours as stated in the lease, that the town has an obligation to plow “within constraint of other snow removal” and that they do not need to plow within 5 feet of a hangar door.

The case has been assigned to Franklin County Justice John Ellis, who will decide if the case continues.