145 Conn. App. 122
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Emerick, an abutting landowner, seeks to halt the demolition of the former Slocomb Mill on town property.
- Town purchased the mill in 2008 and planned demolition of buildings at the site.
- Plaintiff filed suit on November 3, 2010 seeking mandamus, injunctive and declaratory relief to preserve the mill.
- Town moved to dismiss repeatedly, asserting ripeness, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and lack of standing.
- Demolition commenced around October 18, 2011, after substantial procedural steps; court later found mootness and dismissed.
- On appeal, court affirms dismissal for lack of standing, thereby not reaching other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emerick had standing to sue | Emerick has abutting property interest and taxpayer standing. | Emerick lacks direct, personal, legal interest; no aggrievement. | Emerick lacked standing; trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the action was moot | Relief could preserve or restore the mill pending referendum. | Demolition rendered relief impracticable; action moot. | Action dismissed on mootness ground; moot since demolition completed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480 (2003) (standing and aggrievement principles in Connecticut)
- Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184 (1996) (standing and aggrievement requirements; pleadings context)
- West Hartford v. Murtha Cullina, LLP, 85 Conn. App. 15 (2004) (de novo review of standing on appeal; procedural posture)
- Andross v. West Hartford, 285 Conn. 309 (2008) (classical vs statutory aggrievement; standing explained)
- West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford, 279 Conn. 1 (2006) (taxpayer standing and injury requirement)
- Murphy v. Stamford, 115 Conn. App. 675 (2009) (taxpayer standing constraints and injury linkage)