OBSERVER File Photo This is John Carpenter’s home in Cherry Creek. Carpenter is in the midst of a months-long dispute over the condemned structure.

Homeowner John Carpenter went to court Wednesday in Dunkirk against the Town of Cherry Creek and Code Enforcement Officer David Crossley, hoping to finally settle a months-long dispute about his condemned house. In the courtroom, however, Carpenter was only met with more options moving his case forward, rather than any finite conclusion.

When Judge John Kuzdale called the case to the stand, Carpenter approached the bench alone, to present his case without an attorney. Crossley, whom Carpenter claims he hasn’t been able to meet or speak with in the five months since the issue began, was present and accompanied by attorney Shannon O’Neill on behalf of Cherry Creek.

Very early in the case, Kuzdale brought up the function of a small claims court, notifying Carpenter of where he stands since his previous court date in December. “In small claims court, your options are limited,” Kuzdale stated. “Dunkirk Court offers no equitable relief. The most you can gain is a money judgement totaling no more than $5,000.”

Kuzdale went on to explain that only a higher court could overrule a municipality’s authority, and get the result Carpenter desires, if the verdict ends in his favor. “Your cause of action may require a higher court,” Kuzdale said. “That will affect your circumstances. This court has no control over the Town of Cherry Creek or code enforcement.”

Ultimately with Carpenter’s situation, Kuzdale recommended Chautauqua County Supreme Court, since Dunkirk Court was not capable of lifting the condemned status of his property. “Make a motion to Chautauqua County Supreme Court in Mayville,” Kuzdale stated. “If you choose to proceed here, it will not change the status of your property.”

Kuzdale then directly asked Carpenter what he wanted to do going ahead, given the new information. Carpenter took a moment to reply, before supplying a response. “It’s been such a long run, I just want the (condemned) signs removed,” Carpenter said. “This house is sitting idle and I want it to get resolved.”

Kuzdale acknowledged Carpenter’s reply, again re-emphasizing the best possible outcome for Carpenter in his courtroom. “If you prevail here, it’s just a money judgement,” Kuzdale reiterated. “There’s nothing we can do with the signs.”

O’Neill, who had been briefly conversing with Crossley following the last statement, then addressed Kuzdale directly. “One of the main issues we’ve had is a lack of communication with Mr. Carpenter,” O’Neill claimed. “We are willing to set up a date to have Mr. Crossley go in and inspect Mr. Carpenter’s house.”

Carpenter did not accept the offer. “There’s no talking with him,” Carpenter said of Crossley. “If he comes in my house, he’s going to look around, give me tickets without an explanation and go back to Cherry Creek.”

However, Carpenter emphasized he was fine with an inspection, as long as it wasn’t done by Crossley. “A third party is necessary here. If an outside agent comes in to examine it, that’s OK,” Carpenter stated. “An outside person is fine to do the code enforcing.”

O’Neill and Crossley had no further comments. Seemingly reaching an impasse, Kuzdale granted an adjournment to the case until a later date. “What I’m going to do is grant an adjournment until March 20, to discontinue this case in Dunkirk Court.” Kuzdale said. “This will give you time to start new action with the Supreme Court. I highly suggest you seek legal counsel when going to County Supreme Court.”

O’Neill and Crossley both quickly left the courtroom, and could not be reached for comment.

Carpenter left court pensive about incurring further legal fees, noting the crushing rejections he’s already faced from both local and state-level authorities. “I’ve contacted (Assemblyman) Andy Goodell, (state Sen.) Cathy Young, (Congressman) Tom Reed — nobody will help me,” said Carpenter in an interview with the OBSERVER afterward. “They all say the same thing — municipalities have endless money to spend on these cases.”

Carpenter, also taking into account Crossley’s “unchecked authority,” then shared with the OBSERVER a nearly inch-thick folder he’d brought to the stand, but didn’t exhibit in court. The exhibit was full of citations, violations and legal notices that Crossley had given him over the years.

Many of these citations, Carpenter claims, were given to him sporadically and/or without any sort of explanation, sometimes days after an event allegedly took place, showing a pattern in Crossley’s often oppressive, then abruptly non-responsive behavior toward Carpenter. “If Crossley wants to do something, he’ll do it,” Carpenter noted.

Nonetheless, Carpenter seems to be gravitating in the direction of a higher court.