Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Decision Date | 22 May 2001 |
Docket Number | (SC 16346) |
Citation | 773 A.2d 300,256 Conn. 249 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | JOHN GLADYSZ ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PLAINVILLE ET AL. |
Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Corradino and Gordon, Js. Hugh I. Manke, for the appellant (defendant Plainville NWD Limited Partnership).
Lawrence J. Golden, for the appellees (plaintiff Carol Salyards et al.).
This case requires us to determine whether the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the defendant from establishing standing to apply for site plan approval. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs'1 appeal, which claimed that the named defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Plainville (commission), improperly had granted site plan approval to the defendant, Plainville NWD Limited Partnership (partnership), for construction of a retail development on certain real property on which a related entity held an option. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that collateral estoppel prevented the partnership from establishing standing to apply. Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 57 Conn. App. 797, 798, 750 A.2d 507 (2000). We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The following relevant facts are aptly set forth in the Appellate Court opinion. "The property that was the subject of the application was owned by the Tyler Farms Group. The owners entered into an option agreement and purchase and sale agreement (option) for the subject property with Plainville NWD Real Estate Trust (trust). The site plan application was made by the partnership, which paid all of the option costs and application expenses. The trust and the partnership had an oral agreement that the trust would assign the option to the partnership upon the issuance of the permits necessary for the development. The partnership is made up of the beneficiaries of the trust, with Charter House Development Corporation as general partner.
Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 57 Conn. App. 798-801.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment rendered by Judge McWeeny and rejected the partnership's claim that different standards exist for determining aggrievement and standing to apply. Id., 805. The Appellate Court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent relitigation of the issue. Id., 806. The court reasoned that Id., 805.
The partnership petitioned for certification, which we granted on July 13, 1999. The certified question in this appeal is "[d]id the Appellate Court properly conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the defendant Plainville NWD Limited Partnership from establishing its standing to apply for site plan approval?" Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 254 Conn. 904, 755 A.2d 880 (2000). In order properly to address this issue, we must first address whether different standards exist for determining aggrievement and standing to apply. The partnership argues that collateral estoppel is not applicable to the present case because the issue sought to be litigated is not the same as the one previously decided, namely, the question of whether the partnership has standing to apply is different from the question of whether the partnership is properly aggrieved. The partnership also claims that because the issue of standing to apply was not actually litigated or necessarily determined in the trial court decision issued by Judge Handy,4 collateral estoppel does not bar litigation of that specific issue. Conversely, the plaintiffs argue that collateral estoppel precludes the partnership from litigating the issue of whether it had an interest in the subject property sufficient to give it standing to apply for site plan approval because that issue had been litigated and decided by Judge Handy. We agree with the partnership that the Appellate Court improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The terms "aggrievement" and "standing" have been used interchangeably throughout most of Connecticut jurisprudence. We previously have stated that "[t]he question of aggrievement is essentially one of standing...." Beckish v. Manafort, 175 Conn. 415, 419, 399 A.2d 1274 (1978). Although these two legal concepts are similar, they are not, however, identical.5 "Aggrievement is established if there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest ... has been adversely affected." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 530, 525 A.2d 940 (1987), quoting O'Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 83, 98 A.2d 660 (1953); see also Cannavo Enterprises, Inc. v. Burns, 194 Conn. 43, 47, 478 A.2d 601 (1984); Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 65, 475 A.2d 283 (1984). We traditionally have applied the following two part test to determine whether aggrievement exists: (1) does the allegedly aggrieved party have a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of a decision; and (2) has this interest been specially and injuriously affected by the decision. Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 493, 400 A.2d 726 (1978); see, e.g., Nader v. Altermatt, 166 Conn. 43, 51-53, 347 A.2d 89 (1974); New Haven v. Public Utilities Commission, 165 Conn. 687, 700, 345 A.2d 563 (1974); Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 156 Conn. 622, 623, 238 A.2d 413 (1968); Hughes v. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 505, 507-508, 242 A.2d 705 (1968); Gregorio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 422, 425-26, 232 A.2d 330 (1967). Proof of aggrievement is, therefore, "an essential prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction of the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laurel Beach Assoc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford, 20905
...issue are treated as merely dicta.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 260-61, 773 A.2d 300 (2001). Because collateral estoppel ''has dramatic consequences for the party against whom the doctrine is applied . . . t......
-
Solon v. Slater
...to relitigate those facts in the second proceeding" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 256 Conn. 249, 261, 773 A.2d 300 (2001) ("statements by a court regarding a nonessential issue are treated as merely dicta"). The defendants, as the pa......
-
Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton
...and finally decided, it comes to rest."17 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 260, 773 A.2d 300 (2001). Application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is neither statutorily nor constitutionally mandated. The doc......
-
Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC
...unfair...." Weiss v. Weiss, supra, 297 Conn. at 473, 998 A.2d 766 (Palmer, J., dissenting); see also Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 261, 773 A.2d 300 (2001) (courts must "be careful that the effect of the doctrine does not work an injustice"). Our analysis of res ju......
-
2001 Connecticut Appellate Review
...33 257 Conn. 156, 777 A.2d 604 (2001). 34 258 Conn. 501, 782 A.2d 98 (2001). 35 259 Conn. 436, 790 A.2d 1132 (2002). 36 Id. at 440. 37 256 Conn. 249, 773 A.2d 300 (2001). 38 The year 2001 was a big year for collateral estoppel decisions. See also State v. Joyner, 255 Conn. 477, 774 A.2d 927......
-
Survey of 2019 Developments in International Law in Connecticut
...Houston Putnam Lowry's great-great-great-great-great grandfather is General Israel Putnam, who fought at the battle of Bunker Hill. [78] 256 Conn. 249, 261, 773 A.2d 300 (2001). [79] T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, reprinted at 51 Fed Reg 10498. [80] https://www.hcch.net/en/instrument......