The motion to strike count two is denied as the defense of immunity must be raised as a special defense. Westport TaxiService v. Westport Transit District,
Count Four:
Same as above.
Count Eight:
"`To state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.'" See Wilson v. Hryniewicz,
The motion to strike count eight is denied as the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of
Count Nine:
The Connecticut Supreme Court has "acknowledged that there are situations where the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] may be applicable to municipalities in the enforcement of the zoning laws." (Emphasis in original.) See Bloom v. Zoning Board ofAppeals,
The motion to strike count nine is granted as equitable estoppel is a defense and not a cause of action. Id.
Count Ten: CT Page 1787
"An exchange of promises is sufficient consideration to support a contract." Trumbull v. State,
The motion to strike count ten is denied as the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, which is proven, may support a claim for breach of contract.
RIPLEY, J.
