Two years after his restaurant was shut down twice in its opening week for code violations, reality television personality and restaurateur Zach Erdem is suing the Village of Greenport and Mayor Kevin Stuessi, claiming he was unlawfully targeted in what he characterizes as a deliberate campaign to damage his business and reputation.

The mayor and the village are also being sued by the former inspector who issued the code violations that temporily shut down Z’Erdem — an upscale Mediterranean restaurant on Main Road.

Both lawsuits claim Stuessi “targeted” the restauranteur for selective code enforcement. Acting Village Attorney Brian Stolar, responding to both lawsuits, said via email that “the claims have no merit and will be defended in court.”

‘Unlawful raid’

In a $45 million federal civil rights lawsuit filed last week in New York’s Eastern District, Erdem accuses village officials of civil rights violations, defamation, abuse of power and discriminatory enforcement of local codes. He alleges that the shutdown of his restaurant occurred without prior notice or due process and was carried out through what he calls an “unlawful raid” personally directed by the mayor.

The suit stems from events in June 2023, when just days after Z’Erdem opened its doors in Greenport, Stuessi and then–code inspector Bernardo “Alex” Bolanos ordered two closures in four days, citing health and safety code violations. On a Saturday morning following the second shutdown, the mayor and Bolanos sought an emergency court injunction from Southold Town Justice Court to prevent the restaurant from reopening.

Erdem, known for the Southampton hotspot 75 Main and the HBO reality series Serving the Hamptons, claims no violations had been issued before the initial closure. The lawsuit argues that the emergency court order used to justify the shutdown was invalid, as the judge lacked jurisdiction and later withdrew the injunction.

When the initial shutdown did not hold up in court, Erdem’s suit claims, the village responded with two rounds of code violations — 24 in total — for what are described as “trivial or pretextual” infractions, rarely enforced elsewhere in the village.

These included citations for a missing garbage bin enclosure, improper signage and outdoor music. Some of the summonses, according to the lawsuit, labeled the business a “hookah lounge” — language Erdem claims was “intended to be pejorative and directed at Mr. Erdem’s ethnic background and national origin.”

In a Suffolk Times interview earlier this year, Bolanos characterized the citations as punitive and unwarranted.

“I said, ‘Mayor, I can’t give this ticket, because I’d have to give it to everybody else, because nobody has these things,’” Bolanos said, referring to the violation for not fencing in a garbage bin.

“’We’re on Zach right now,’” he claimed the mayor responded. “That was always his reply, ‘Only Zach.’”

Erdem has acknowledged at least one of the cited violations — housing staff in a trailer behind the restaurant — telling the newspaper two years ago that he didn’t realize it was against code. “I thought it would be okay for a couple days,” he said at the time.

Another key dispute centers on Z’Erdem’s liquor license. Stuessi told the newspaper in 2023 that the restaurant had been serving alcohol without a state-issued license. Erdem, however, countered that the State Liquor Authority had approved his license on May 31 — the same day the restaurant was first shut down — and that prior to that, customers brought their own alcohol or were served without being charged.

“Either people brought their own or we were just pouring [liquor] for people and not charging them money,” Erdem said at the time.

The lawsuit further alleges that village officials sent letters on June 8 and June 22, 2023 to the State Liquor Authority containing “knowingly false statements” that delayed the issuance of Z’Erdem’s license.

‘Selective’ enforcement

Meanwhile, Bolanos — the former village code inspector who was terminated earlier this year — has filed his own legal action against Stuessi, the village and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). In a petition filed earlier this month in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Bolanos seeks reinstatement to his former position, along with back pay and benefits, claiming he was wrongfully terminated and denied union representation. A local village liaison to the regional CSEA chapter did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did the regional union president.

Bolanos alleges that during his tenure, Mayor Stuessi directed him to selectively enforce the building code — targeting Erdem while shielding other businesses, including the nearby Sterlington Deli.

In a March 17 article in the Suffolk Times, Bolanos said he had recently met with investigators from the Suffolk County District Attorney’s public corruption bureau and described several instances of alleged political interference in his work. He claimed the mayor overrode cease-and-desist or stop-work orders and directed punitive enforcement against specific business owners.

The day after that story was published, village officials were served with Suffolk County grand jury document subpoenas relating to the Sterlington Deli incident and another unrelated construction project, according to the Suffolk Times.

Mayor Stuessi has previously denied the allegations of unequal enforcement, telling the Suffolk Times that the garbage bin violation was issued in response to a neighbor’s complaint. He said it was “part of multiple code violations which the code enforcement official and village counsel dealt with through documented violations and court action.”

‘Rare’ case

Daniel Rodgers, a former Suffolk County prosecutor who also served for years as a special prosecutor in the villages of East Hampton and Quogue, said the case is an unusual one.  

“It’s very rare that I have ever seen a village official come in and shut down an establishment without at first issuing some type of notice of violation, which is, simply just a ‘clean up your act’ notice, or ‘we’re going to charge you.’ Then they issue a violation. The last thing they typically do is come in and shut the place down unless it is an immediate health and safety violation.

“For example, the outdoor trailer housing employees — that could clearly be a health and safety violation, and [village officials] would seem to be in their rights to go and shut that down. But government intervention typically has to be the least intrusive means. So that means you go and shut down the trailer and tell the employees they have to live somewhere else because it’s a health and safety violation, but you don’t shut down the restaurant.”

Rodgers also noted that village officials are “not required to issue a violation first.

“It takes time to issue a violation. You’ve got to go back and create paperwork. If it’s a serious enough violation — ‘the floorboard over there is about to break and you have customers walking in’ — you can shut it down immediately.

“Normal protocol is a notice of violation, then a violation, and then you shut them down. But that’s only for serious health, safety, fire violations where people can get hurt. Having loud music, beyond what’s permitted — that’s a citation. You don’t shut the restaurant down. That just doesn’t make any sense.”