The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court ruling in a property dispute between the Brinkmann family and the Town of Southold, New York, according to a summary order issued Jan. 23, 2026.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker Jr., and Joseph F. Bianco ruled in favor of plaintiffs Ben Brinkmann, Hank Brinkmann, and Mattituck 12500 LLC, reversing the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York's order from Sept. 30, 2024.
The case, designated as *Brinkmann v. Town of Southold* (2d Cir. 2026), involved the Brinkmann brothers and their limited liability company challenging actions taken by the Long Island municipality. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall had initially ruled against the Brinkmanns, but the appeals court found grounds to overturn that decision.
The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm known for property rights litigation, represented the Brinkmanns on appeal. Attorney Christen Mason Hebert argued the case, with Arif Panju, Jeffrey Redfern, and William Aronin contributing to the brief. The Institute for Justice frequently takes on cases involving government overreach and constitutional property rights violations.
The Town of Southold was represented by Scott J. Kreppein of Devitt Spellman Barrett LLP, a Long Island-based firm that handles municipal law matters. The town defended its position from the district court proceedings, though the specific nature of the dispute was not detailed in the available court documents.
Mattituck 12500 LLC appears to be a business entity connected to the Brinkmann family's property interests. The company's name suggests a connection to the Mattituck area of Southold, a hamlet on Long Island's North Fork known for its agricultural and waterfront properties.
The Second Circuit issued its ruling as a summary order, which carries specific procedural implications under federal appellate rules. Summary orders do not have precedential effect, meaning they cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1 permit citation of summary orders filed after Jan. 1, 2007, with specific formatting requirements.
When citing the *Brinkmann* summary order in future court filings, parties must reference either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database and include the notation "SUMMARY ORDER." Additionally, any party citing the order must serve a copy on unrepresented parties.
The reversal suggests the appeals court found the district court made an error in its legal analysis or factual findings. Property disputes involving municipalities often center on zoning violations, permit denials, regulatory takings, or due process violations. The Institute for Justice's involvement indicates the case likely involved constitutional property rights issues, as the organization specializes in cases challenging government restrictions on property use and ownership.
The Town of Southold, located on eastern Long Island, encompasses multiple hamlets including Mattituck, Greenport, and Southold proper. The area has faced increasing development pressures and regulatory challenges as it balances growth with preservation of its agricultural character and natural resources.
Property rights disputes in Long Island communities often involve conflicts between property owners seeking to develop or use their land and municipal governments implementing zoning restrictions or environmental regulations. These cases frequently raise questions about the proper scope of local government authority and constitutional protections for property owners.
The timing of the reversal, coming just over a year after the district court's initial ruling, reflects the typical appellate timeline for such cases. The relatively quick resolution suggests the appeals court found clear grounds for reversing the lower court's decision.
For the Brinkmann family and Mattituck 12500 LLC, the reversal represents a victory in their ongoing dispute with Southold. However, the summary order format means the specific reasoning behind the court's decision remains unclear from the available documentation.
The case will likely return to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Second Circuit's ruling. Depending on the nature of the original dispute, this could involve additional discovery, motion practice, or trial proceedings.
The involvement of the Institute for Justice suggests broader implications for property rights in the Second Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. While the summary order lacks precedential value, it may signal the appeals court's approach to similar property rights disputes.
The reversal also highlights the importance of appellate review in complex property disputes, where constitutional and statutory interpretation issues often require careful analysis by federal appeals courts with expertise in property law and municipal authority.