NARROWSBURG, NY — One year after Bar Veloce was ordered to close due to code enforcement issues, the Narrowsburg bar and eatery has found no success in its attempts to reopen. An initial plea to the Sullivan County Supreme Court ended in failure; while Bar Veloce is appealing that decision, the doors have remained closed on the building thus far.

In emails with the River Reporter, owner Frederick Twomey said, “We continue to challenge that town’s action—and the process by which it was taken—through the appropriate administrative and court proceedings. Our intention for Bar Veloce hasn’t changed. We would like to reopen and continue to be part of Narrowsburg for many years to come.”

How we got here

The Town of Tusten closed Bar Veloce on August 28, 2025, with code enforcement officer Jim Crowley placing the first of a series of notices on the building’s doors. Crowley rescinded the business’ certificate of occupancy, stating that it could not reopen until it had addressed outstanding fire and building code issues. 

Bar Veloce appealed Crowley’s decision to the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals, claiming he’d acted arbitrarily in closing the business. The ZBA declined to hear the appeal; according to the ZBA, a code enforcement decision should be appealed to the NYS Department of State, not to a local ZBA. 

Bar Veloce then filed suit in December 2025, challenging the ZBA’s decision not to hear the case. 

The Sullivan County Supreme Court ruled against Bar Veloce in July. It agreed with the ZBA that Bar Veloce should have filed with the state department; it pointed out, for instance, that when Bar Veloce filed its appeal with the ZBA, it had to submit a written letter and leave all the information on the ZBA’s appeals form blank, because the ZBA appeals process had nothing to do with the case at hand. 

“Petitioner [Bar Veloce] filed its appeal in an incorrect forum, and when the correct forum was provided to it by the ZBA, rather than pivoting to the correct forum, filed this application… the petition is dismissed, as the Town of Tusten ZBA correctly found it was without jurisdiction to render a decision,” wrote judge Stephen Schick. 

Bar Veloce appealed that decision, too. In an August 12 filing, attorney Bernard Kleinman argued that the court did not address Bar Veloce’s arguments in making its ruling. 

“The court’s decision and order proceeds directly from the recision of petitioner’s certificate of occupancy to the question of jurisdiction without first identifying the legal framework governing that governmental act,” writes Kleinman. In other words, rather than addressing any of Bar Veloce’s questions about whether Crowley acted correctly to withdraw the certificate of occupancy, it simply ruled that the ZBA did not have jurisdiction to rule on those questions. 

In a counter filing from the town, attorney Ken Klein points out that the court never said it didn’t consider all of Bar Veloce’s arguments. 

“It is a supposition that the court misapprehended the facts and law simply because the decision and order did not elaborate in express detail upon each and every one of the myriad assertions and specious arguments made by the petitioner in the petition and its supporting papers,” wrote Klein. “The court was not obligated to render its decision in that form. The court made it abundantly clear that all of petitioner’s claims and arguments were considered, deliberated and found unpersuasive when it ended the decision and order holding that: ‘[t] he court has considered all other arguments and finds them to be without basis in law or fact.’”

“Plainly, that the court did not write an opinion in form and content acceptable to petitioner does not evince misapprehension by it of the law and facts,” Klein wrote. 

The appellate court has yet to decide whether it will accept the appeal. 

Twomey said, “I would be less than candid if I said I were not as perplexed as anyone by why this has become such a struggle. Nonetheless, we will continue to defend the approved uses of the property—as a garage and an eating and drinking establishment—through the appropriate channels.”

Asked if the ownership had made changes to the building to address the allegations of code-related shortcomings, Twomey said, “Of course, we will be happy to address any issues that ultimately require attention in due course.”