47 Conn. Super. Ct. 309 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 2001
The appeal of the commission's order was timely filed and, after briefs were submitted, the court heard oral argument on January 3, 2001.
A contested administrative hearing was held on May 20, 1999, before hearing officer Colleen M. Murphy. On July 14, 1999, the commission held a hearing on Murphy's amended proposed final decision. The commission affirmed Murphy's proposed final decision and, on July 22, 1999, issued a notice of final decision finding that the tax assessor violated §
The facts underlying the present case are essentially undisputed. The tax assessor challenges the final decision of the commission on the legal ground that it improperly concluded that neither the act nor General Statutes §§
The tax assessor is, therefore, aggrieved and has standing to appeal.
The ultimate determination is whether, "in view of all of the evidence . . . the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion." Domestic Violence Services ofGreater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission,
The essence of the present appeal is a challenge to the commission's conclusions of law concerning application to the tax assessor of the act and §
The act "regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments." Reno v. Condon,
Section 2721 (a) of the act provides in pertinent part: "Except as provided in subsection (b), a State department of motor vehicles, and anyofficer, employee, or contractor, thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record." (Emphasis added.)
Section
Neither the act nor §
Moreover, § 2721 (b) (1) of the act permits disclosure of personal information by a state department of motor vehicles and any officer, employee, or contractor, thereof "[f]or use by any government agency . .. in carrying out its functions. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Section
Section
Section
General Statutes §
General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) §
The tax assessor contended to the commission that she is the custodian of the records provided to her by the commissioner of motor vehicles and, as custodian, is prohibited from disclosing them. That contention is not supported by the facts or the law. As the hearing officer rightfully found, the tax assessor is not the legal custodian of the department of motor vehicle records, but, rather, is given such records annually to compile a motor vehicle grand list each year pursuant to §
The tax assessor also contends that the phrases "except as otherwise specially provided by law" in §
Accordingly, the appeal of the tax assessor is dismissed.