Crouchley v. Pambianchi
| Decision Date | 02 December 1964 |
| Citation | 205 A.2d 492,152 Conn. 224 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles CROUCHLEY, Jr., et al. v. Linda PAMBIANCHI et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Philip H. Smith, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).
J. Harold Merrick, Ridgefield, for appellees (defendants Pambianchi), and Norwick R. G. Goodspeed, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Robert J. Cooney, Bridgeport, for the appellee (defendant Shell Oil Co.); with them were Carl D. Eisenman, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant commissioner of motor vehicles), and, on the brief, Romeo G. Petroni, Ridgefield, for appellees (defendants Ridgefield zoning board of appeals and others.).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and LEIPNER, JJ.
We discuss a single aspect of this case which is conclusive of the appeal. The decision in Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 149 Conn. 512, 182 A.2d 11, was rendered on May 18, 1962. By a substituted complaint dated October 4, 1962, the present action was commenced seeking to enjoin the named defendant, her husband, the Shell Oil Company, the commissioner of motor vehicles, the zoning board of appeals of Ridgefield and the Ridgefield building inspector from permitting or proceeding with the establishment of a gasoline filling station under the authority of the procedures which were in issue in the prior case. The basic facts of the prior case, amplified in particulars not now material, were alleged as the basis for the relief sought. Seven individual plaintiffs brought the present action, alleging that they owned land zoned for residence purposes and located immediately adjacent or in close proximity to the Pambianchi land. Three of the plaintiffs died during the pendency of the suit, and the case was withdrawn as to them.
The complaint alleged that 'the value of the interests of the plaintiffs in their lands and the residential character thereof are subject to great impairment, their pecuniary interests are or may be injuriously affected and the plaintiffs are threatened with irreparable injury from which they have no adequate remedy at law.' This allegation was denied by all defendants. The parties went to trial on this disputed issue, along with others not necessary to recite, and upon a stipulation that the plaintiffs 'are judicially aggrieved parties herein and have proper standing to bring this action.'
In a trial which resulted in a judgment for the defendants, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish irreparable injury. The plaintiffs assign error in this conclusion. An examination of the subordinate facts shows that this claim of error has no merit. The court found only that the proposed location of the gasoline filling station is diagonally across the street from the property of one plaintiff, that the property of that plaintiff is in a residential zone, and that the property of one other plaintiff abuts a business zone. The relation of this latter property to the Pambianchi property does not appear. What, if any, connection the remaining plaintiffs have with the case is not disclosed. Paragraphs of the draft finding which the plaintiffs seek to have added to the finding contain no mention of any of the plaintiffs or of any facts which would identify them with any threatened irreparable injury.
Thus, it is apparent that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahill v. Board of Ed. of City of Stamford
...of the plaintiff's rights, but such a violation as is, or will be, attended with actual or serious damage.' Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 152 Conn. 224, 227, 205 A.2d 492 [1964]...." Simmons v. Budds, 165 Conn. 507, 515, 338 A.2d 479 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 940, 94 S.Ct. 1943, 40 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Zoning Commission of Sachem's Head Ass'n v. Leninski
...discloses, none of the member families saw fit to commence litigation to enjoin the violations claimed herein. See Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 152 Conn. 224, 205 A.2d 492. It has been stated above that the defendant had consented to a temporary injunction involving his wrongful use of signs. T......
-
Hartford Elec. Light Co. v. Levitz
...an injunction is warranted. A few of the many cases so holding are: Jones v. Foote, 165 Conn. 516, 338 A.2d 467; Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 152 Conn. 224, 205 A.2d 492; Point O'Woods Assn., Inc. v. Busher, 117 Conn. 247, 167 A. 546; Bigelow v. Hartford Bridge Co., 14 Conn. 565. These and many......
-
Silitschanu v. Groesbeck
...facts which will establish irreparable harm as a result of that violation. See Scoville v. Ronalter, supra; Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 152 Conn. 224, 226, 205 A.2d 492 [1964]; Lavitt v. Pierre, 152 Conn. 66, 77, 203 A.2d 289 [1964]; Lehmaier v. Wadsworth, 122 Conn. 571, 191 A. 539 "Injunctive......