1 Conn. App. 66 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1983
The plaintiff sought an order of mandamus to compel the defendant James J. Sotire, Jr., the building official and zoning enforcement officer for the city of Stamford, to issue a building permit for the construction of an office building. Michael D. Macri and William D. Sabia, both of whom were involved in zoning enforcement, were the other defendants. All three defendants were represented at the trial level by the corporation counsel of the city.
The trial court, in a thoughtful and analytical decision dated July 30, 1981, granted mandamus and ordered the issuance of the permit. The office of corporation counsel decided not to appeal this matter. On August 18, 1981, the law firm of Abate, Fox and Farrell entered an appearance for the city of Stamford and filed this appeal.1 Richard Farrell of that firm claims authorization from the mayor of Stamford to file the appeal. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal, which was based on the grounds of mootness, waiver and estoppel, on February 2, 1983, without opinion.
This court is not bound by the earlier denial of a motion to dismiss. In Governors Grove Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Hill Development Corporation,
Jurisdiction over an appeal requires the existence of an actual and existing controversy. Delevieleuse v. Manson,
The Supreme Court held, in Reilly v. State,
The general rule is stated in Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., supra, 634, as follows: "During oral argument the defendants acknowledged that they no *69
longer had any interest in the premises in question because of a foreclosure subsequent to this appeal. Although a party may have had an appealable interest in a controversy, if, after judgment, his interest is either conveyed or transferred absolutely or terminated by operation of law, his right to appeal is lost, since he no longer has any interest in the litigation and is not injured by the result of the action. Newton v. Barnett,
In the present case, the defendant building official voluntarily issued the permit after the corporation counsel decided not to appeal. Other counsel for the same defendants thereafter filed the appeal. Such a "now you see it, now you don't" performance makes a mockery of the even-handed administration of zoning regulations.
The matter has been rendered moot by the defendants' own action and cannot be revived Lazarus-like by importing another set of lawyers into the case.
In light of our disposition of the case, it is not necessary to consider the plaintiff's claims seeking dismissal on the grounds of waiver and estoppel.
The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.