179 Conn. App. 127
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- RCI held a general recycling permit and applied in 2008 for an individual permit to expand operations; DEEP issued tentative approval in 2012 but later learned of disputed ownership.
- Litigation between Darlene Chapdelaine and Gus Curcio revealed Curcio was the beneficial owner; a 2012 judgment found Curcio beneficially owned 100% of RCI.
- DEEP issued notices withdrawing approval, denying the individual permit, and proposing revocation of the general permit based on nondisclosure, false information, and a pattern or practice of noncompliance.
- A five‑day administrative hearing produced extensive factual findings that RCI (through nominees) omitted and misrepresented ownership, control, and financing (including "beneficial" documents) and repeatedly failed reporting obligations.
- The hearing officer recommended denial and revocation; the deputy commissioner adopted that recommendation. RCI appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed the administrative appeal; RCI appealed to the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation/denial was warranted under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a‑6m(a) and DEEP rules | RCI: DEEP did not prove a pattern/practice of noncompliance sufficient to revoke/deny; penalty too severe | DEEP: Statute/regulations allow denial/revocation when record shows pattern/practice of noncompliance or failure to disclose material facts | Court: Substantial evidence supports finding of pattern/practice and nondisclosure; denial/revocation within agency discretion and lawful |
| Whether agency applied wrong standard (failed to do de novo review) | RCI: Hearing officer said she would only test whether record supported staff, not perform impartial de novo review; violated fairness | DEEP: Hearing officer fully heard evidence, made detailed findings, and conducted impartial review | Court: Statement was not prejudicial; record shows thorough, de novo, fair review |
| Whether exclusion of evidence (DEEP enforcement actions against other facilities) violated fairness | RCI: Prior agency actions show how DEEP treats similar violations and are relevant to penalty and arbitrariness | DEEP: Evidence irrelevant absent selective‑enforcement claim; RCI withdrew that claim | Court: Exclusion proper — other facilities’ enforcement history irrelevant without selective enforcement issue |
| Whether commissioner’s prehearing public statement and contacts created disqualifying bias | RCI: Commissioner’s statement and meeting with Milford tainted staff and process | DEEP: Commissioner recused before final decision; no showing staff was dominated by statement | Court: No actual bias shown; recusal cured any potential prejudice; trial court’s no‑bias finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolgner v. Alander, 237 Conn. 272 (1996) (defines substantial‑evidence review and its limits)
- AFSCME, AFL‑CIO, Council 4, Local 2405 v. Norwalk, 156 Conn. App. 79 (2015) (standard of review for administrative decisions under UAPA)
- FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 313 Conn. 669 (2014) (scope of the right to fundamental fairness in administrative proceedings)
- Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354 (1992) (test for disqualification for prejudgment of adjudicative facts)