Does Highway Superintendent William Naughton have the right to hire or not?

That’s the question he is asking the Suffolk County Supreme Court to answer in a pair of counterclaims served against the Town of Huntington.

The Highway Superintendent’s counterclaim seeks a declaration from the court that “Naughton’s hiring of individual defendants… was lawful and within his jurisdiction and authority under Section 140(4) of the Highway Law.”

The intent is to end 10 years of legal football and get a court order one way or the other, Naughton’s attorney Tom Levin said.

“He’s counterclaiming and saying, ‘this has to get resolved.’ Otherwise, we’re going to be in court over and over,” Levin said.

In papers the Town of Huntington received on Monday, Naughton also demanded the court dismiss the claims made against him and order the town to let him hire and pay the eight men named in the suit.

The Highway Superintendent’s countersuit accuses the town board of moving money budgeted for salaries for vacant positions out of the Highway Department and into contingency accounts through a series of resolutions in late 2009 and early 2010. The move was to illegally deny him use of those funds and prevented him from doing his job, he said.

When Naughton moved to hire the men “‘within the limitations of appropriations’ in that there were, or should have been, sufficient funds in the budget for the Highway Department for that purpose,” the town refused to recognize the eight men as employees and would not pay them.

“The acts of the town and/or Supervisor [Frank] Petrone set forth above are unlawful and improperly interfere with and preempt Naughton from performing his duties as Superintendent of the Highway department,” the papers read.

Huntington spokesman A.J. Carter said the counterclaims would not affect the town’s March 3 motion to withdraw their lawsuit against Naughton, according to an order to show cause filed on the same day. The town initially sued Naughton on Feb. 3, accusing him of violating a hiring freeze and attempting to circumvent hiring procedures designed to control spending.

“The other issues he raised were decided by a court against him 10 years ago,” Carter added. “This question was litigated 10 years ago and the decision went against Naughton. The town board has the power to set the budget.”

Naughton sued the town in 2000, demanding they place five appointees on the payroll. After the town countersued, the case concluded in 2006 with both sides’ suits being dismissed.

In the 2006 decision, Judge Robert W. Doyle ruled such a dispute was unlikely to happen again.

“Since each of the appointees was ultimately hired, and it is speculative whether the plaintiff will ever again seek to appoint individuals to positions for which there are no budgeted vacancies, this case no longer presents a genuine controversy and its resolution will have no immediate effect on the parties,” Doyle wrote on March 30, 2006.