After initially declining to extend an arrest warrant for Daniel Banyai, a judge said Monday that he might reconsider that stance.
“I will assure you this: There’s going to be a resolution of this. I am going to assure you of that,” Judge Thomas Durkin told lawyers for Banyai and the Pawlet town government in their years-long legal battle over Banyai’s property that has been used for military-like weapons training. “When that occurs, it’s going to be bad news for at least one of you. It might be bad news for both of you.”
At Monday’s remote hearing, the first in almost a year, Durkin said he may extend the warrant if both parties agree, or if the Supreme Court, currently overseeing Banyai’s appeal in the case, were to approve a request from either party to allow the lower court jurisdiction over the warrant.
Banyai did not appear to attend the hearing.
Pawlet officials have for years asked the environmental court to require Banyai to remove buildings from the property, called Slate Ridge, that had not been issued town permits. Durkin, an environmental court judge overseeing the case, issued an arrest warrant in July, declaring that Banyai was in contempt of a March 2021 court order to dismantle unpermitted structures on his property.
Later, Banyai contended he had complied with the court’s requirements, though he has not allowed Pawlet officials to inspect his property. He appealed the case to the Vermont Supreme Court, and his arrest warrant expired without Vermont State Police or the Rutland County Sheriff’s Department executing it.
Following the warrant’s expiration, Merrill Bent, the town of Pawlet’s attorney, requested that it be extended.
Durkin initially declined the town’s request, siding with Banyai’s attorney, Robert Kaplan, in finding that the state Supreme Court now had jurisdiction.
On Monday, Durkin stopped short of altering the arrest warrant, telling Bent that he had concerns about “disturbing … the very matter that Mr. Banyai has appealed to the Supreme Court.”
Unprompted, Durkin also addressed outstanding questions over whether photos Banyai filed in court, which appeared to show he had dismantled unpermitted structures on his property, represented compliance with his previous orders.
“I am troubled by what appears from the filings to be Mr. Banyai’s assertion that he is in conformance, and yet he has not advised the town that it has the authority to enter upon the property to inspect,” Durkin said. “The fines continue to accrue until compliance occurs. And if I were Mr. Banyai, that would give me pause.”
Durkin set a Thursday deadline for both parties to attempt to reach an agreement on giving the lower court jurisdiction over the arrest warrant. Otherwise, Pawlet would need to ask the Supreme Court to allow the environmental court to modify Banyai’s warrant.
In Banyai’s pending appeal before the Supreme Court, lawyers for both parties have until Oct. 23 to file briefs.
“It would seem to me that it would move this case along considerably,” Durkin said, “if Mr. Banyai would authorize town agents to enter upon the property.”
