Barnini v. Liquor Control Commission
| Decision Date | 08 May 1959 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | John B. BARNINI v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
John D. LaBelle and Jay E. Rubinow, Manchester, with whom, on the brief, was Seymour A. Rothenberg, Manchester, for appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas J. Conroy, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ., and SHEA, Superior court judge.
From a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas sustaining the action of the liquor control commission in denying the application of the plaintiff for a package store permit in Manchester, he has appealed.
The zoning regulations in Manchester prohibit the use of premises for the sale of alcoholic liquor within 1,000 feet in a direct line of any other premises so used. Manchester Zoning Regs., art. 4, § 8. The statute makes it mandatory upon the liquor control commission to refuse permits where the sale of alcoholic liquor is prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Rev.1958, § 30-44.
On January 20, 1958, the commission conducted hearings on the plaintiff's application and that of Leon C. Twombly, who sought a restaurant liquor permit for a Howard Johnson restaurant. Both premises were on Tolland turnpike less than 600 feet apart. Also heard on the same day was the application of Donald A. Knofla for premises on the turnpike at Deming Street, 1900 feet from the plaintiff's location. Twombly and Knofla had filed their applications after the plaintiff had filed. Ten days after the hearings, the members of the commission visited the area to determine the character of the neighborhood. Thereafter, the plaintiff's application was denied because of unsuitability of place in that a package store permit at that location would be detrimental to the public interest. Both of the other applications received favorable consideration. Despite the effort of counsel to inject into this appeal the question of the action taken upon the other applications, it is not germane to the issue before us. We are not considering an appeal by remonstrants to the granting of those permits. The only matter before us for review is the action of the court in determining that the commission did not act illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion in denying the plaintiff's application.
The record discloses that the plaintiff had moved a frame two-car garage onto property adjoining a gasoline station which he operated about 150 feet from an eastbound exit of the Wilbur Cross Parkway. Two other gasoline stations, a motel and the Howard Johnson restaurant were the only other buildings in the immediate vicinity. The adjacent land was undeveloped. Such residential areas as existed were sparsely settled and some distance away. At the time the application was filed, the garage was temporarily resting on cement blocks and the front of the building was open to the weather except for a single-width door which was temporarily fastened in the center. At the time of the hearing, the front of the building had not been closed. Across the parkway there was another motel and two gasoline stations, but there was no direct connection from one side of the parkway to the other. The population of Manchester was about 34,000 in 1950 and there are 90 liquor permit premises in town, including 20 package stores and 16 restaurants.
After judgment had been rendered dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the judgment for consideration of a supplemental transcript of the hearing before the commission. The court examined the transcript and denied the motion on the ground that the testimony in the transcript would not cause the court to change its conclusion. The transcript shows that after the Knofla hearing the plaintiff was permitted to testify further on his own application, and the gist of his testimony was that he did not know, when he moved the garage onto his property and made his application for a permit, that Twombly and Knofla were planning to apply for their permits. The action of the court in denying the motion was within its legal discretion. Cichy v. Kostyk, 143 Conn. 688, 697, 125 A.2d 483; Keller v. Carone, 138 Conn. 405, 407, 85 A.2d 489.
Upon the trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce testimony concerning other package store permits issued by the commission and particularly the one issued to Knofla, claiming that this evidence was admissible to show that it would not be detrimental to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helfant v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Wilton
... ... 99] the board's action in so doing was not discriminatory. See Barnini v ... Liquor Control Commission, 146 Conn. 416, 417, 420, 151 A.2d 697 ... ...
-
Steve Viglione Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Sakonchick
...is not likely to affect the verdict. See Freccia v. Martin, 163 Conn. 160, 165, 302 A.2d 280 (1972); Barnini v. Liquor Control Commission, 146 Conn. 416, 419, 151 A.2d 697 (1959); Keller v. Carone, 138 Conn. 405, 407, 85 A.2d 489 (1951). Similarly a motion for a new trial will not be grante......
-
Mainolfi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Derby
...the question involved in the appeal taken. Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 732, 97 A.2d 562; Barnini v. Liquor Control Commission, 146 Conn. 416, 419, 151 A.2d 697. There was therefore no error in sustaining the demurrer to the second Some of the allegations expunged from the......
-
Highland Park, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of North Haven
...There is no appeal before us on the applications which were granted, and they are not germane to the issue. Barnini v. Liquor Control Commission, 146 Conn. 416, 418, 151 A.2d 697. Even so, it appears, quite aside from the absence, in the present case, of the full facts pertinent to those ap......