205 Conn.App. 213
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Berka owned rental property at 5 Maple Place, Middletown; city issued a notice of blight (Jan 10, 2018) listing seven alleged violations and a citation (Feb 14, 2018).
- City assessed a $100/day fine per violation (initially $700/day for seven violations), issued a failure-to-pay notice claiming accumulated fines; citation hearing held May 2, 2018.
- Citation hearing officer issued a revised assessment; Berka petitioned the Superior Court under § 7-152c(g) and Practice Book § 23-51 to reopen the assessment; the Superior Court held a de novo hearing (Nov 7, 2019).
- Trial court struck Berka’s jury demand, sustained six of seven blight violations, and calculated fines of $25,200 (42 days × $600); Berka appealed.
- Berka sought to raise bias, multiple constitutional challenges, and contested factual findings (e.g., boarded windows, structural damage, refuse); he also filed a last-minute request to amend his petition to assert constitutional claims three days before the de novo hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial on petition to reopen citation | Berka: serious monetary exposure and property interests warrant a jury | City: Practice Book §23-51(c) mandates a de novo hearing and bars jury trials for citation assessments | Trial court properly struck jury demand; no right to jury under §23-51(c) |
| Alleged conflict of interest of citation hearing officer | Berka: hearing officer Rutkowska is a local attorney with ties to city, creating likely bias | City: Issue was not raised before the hearing officer; de novo Superior Court hearing cures any potential prejudice | Berka waived the claim by not raising it below; in any event de novo review remedied possible prejudice |
| Permission to amend petition to add constitutional claims | Berka: should have been allowed to amend to assert First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendment claims | City: Amendment untimely and failed to comply with Practice Book pleading/amendment rules; prejudice to city | Trial court acted within its discretion to deny the late amendment; constitutional claims not properly before the court and not considered on appeal |
| Sufficiency of factual findings (blight elements, officer qualifications, compliance timing) | Berka: boarded windows, winter timing, officer lacked structural qualifications, siding not seriously damaged, walls watertight, no visible refuse | City: Photographs and officer testimony supported findings; Berka did not request additional time to comply | Trial court’s factual findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; preserved presumptions in favor of trial court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 291 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2009) (failure to raise bias at administrative hearing precludes appellate review)
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App. 2013) (trial court has broad discretion to allow or deny amendments of pleadings)
- Guzman v. Yeroz, 167 Conn. App. 420 (Conn. App. 2016) (appellate courts generally will not review claims raised first on appeal)
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 252 Conn. 153 (Conn. 2000) (appellate review is limited to matters in the trial record)
- Council v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 477 (Conn. 2008) (party may not shift theories between trial and appeal)
- Cohen v. Roll-A-Cover, LLC, 131 Conn. App. 443 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard for reversing factual findings: clearly erroneous test)