Dan M. Creed, Inc. v. Tynan

• Decision Date: 16 June 1964
• Citation: 151 Conn. 677,202 A.2d 239
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DAN M. CREED, INC. v. John J. TYNAN, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 239

202 A.2d 239

151 Conn. 677

DAN M. CREED, INC. v. John J. TYNAN, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 16, 1964.

Alexander Winnick, New Haven, with whom were Edward B. Winnick, New Haven, and, on the brief, Arnold M. Potash and David W. Skolnick, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Louis Weinstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., and Carl D. Eisenman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN, and COMLEY, JJ., and HOUSE, Acting Justice.

COMLEY, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the commissioner of motor vehicles suspending for two days the license of the plaintiff corporation to deal in and repair motor vehicles because it had sold a new car which had been used by it in connection with its business as a dealer without displaying the word 'demonstrator' on the face of the order and also of the invoice as required by General Statutes § 14-62(8).

Pursuant to General Statutes § 14-64, a hearing was conducted by Samuel Briglia, who was chief of the division of the department of motor vehicles which deals with the licensing of dealers and repairers of motor vehicles. It was Briglia who made the first decision to suspend the plaintiff's license for a period of two days, and he so notified the plaintiff by a letter dated September 26, 1962. Briglia acted pursuant to a letter dated May 16, 1960, which was signed by the commissioner and which designated Briglia to represent him in conducting hearings and rendering decisions. A few days after the notice of suspension was sent to the plaintiff, Dan M. Creed, the president and principal stockholder of the corporation, was given an appointment with the commissioner for the purpose of discussing the case. Briglia was present at the meeting, and the commissioner told him, in the presence of Creed, that he wanted to examine the record of the proceedings at the hearing. The commissioner directed that the suspension be held in abeyance until a further order by him. In January, 1963, after examining the record, the commissioner decided that Briglia's decision was justified, and he ordered Briglia to notify the plaintiff that a two-day suspension was to commence on February 4, 1963.

When the commissioner designated Briglia to represent him in conducting hearings and rendering decisions, he purported to act under authorization of General Statutes §§ 14-7, 14-64 and 14-110. Section 14-7 provides for the appointment of a deputy commissioner and empowers him to hear and determine questions which may come before the department when he is so directed by the commissioner, but it does not authorize the delegation of that authority to any other assistant. Nor does either of the other statutes referred to by the commissioner. Section 14-64 gives to the commissioner the power to suspend licenses, and § 14-110 confers upon him, his deputy, or an assistant designated by him, the power to administer oaths and take testimony. Section 14-110 does not, however, confer upon that assistant the authority to make decisions.

In determining the issues concerning the revocation or suspension of a dealer's...