Judge refuses to step down in Governors Island case

LACONIA — A Superior Court judge will not recuse himself from presiding over a lawsuit brought by the Governors Island Club against one of the association’s property owners.

Judge James D. O’Neill III issued an order Tuesday stating that Richard Homsi had “failed to identify any facts or circumstances” that showed the judge had shown any bias against him or favoritism toward the homeowners’ association.

Homsi said Wednesday he planned to file a motion asking the judge to reconsider his decision not to step down from the case.

O’Neill has been presiding over the case since 2015, when he ordered Homsi to remove a foundation on top of which he planned to place a cottage, in violation of restrictions on the deed to his property.

Homsi owns lakefront property on Lake Winnipesaukee at 84 Summit Avenue, Laconia, across a channel from Governors Island, which is in Gilford. Despite being in different municipalities, Homsi’s property has been part of the Governors Island homeowners group since 1992 when a prior homeowner joined the organization, an act which placed restrictions on the deed to the property.

The case goes back to 2012 when the homeowners’ group sued Homsi for attempting to build the structure after being told it did not conform to the association’s regulations.

At a hearing on the recusal motion on Friday, Homsi accused O’Neill of not treating him fairly in his handling of the case for the past five years, citing a series of decisions and rulings that have gone against him.

O’Neill said his “rulings and conduct throughout this proceeding [reveal] no prejudice, favoritism or antagonism.”

At Friday’s hearing, Homsi argued that he was the victim of selective enforcement. He told the court that some property owners on Governors Island have since been allowed to build detached garages with living quarters that are bigger than what he wanted to build.

Homsi maintained that further evidence of O’Neill’s “one-sidedness” has been the judge’s refusal to allow “newly provided and prior evidence” into the case.

In his ruling, O’Neill concluded that Homsi’s motion was, “in essence, a motion for a new trial, and that he had not satisfied” the criteria necessary to be granted a new trial.