Devaney v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of City Of New Haven.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1945 |
| Citation | 43 A.2d 304,132 Conn. 218 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEVANEY et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF CITY OF NEW HAVEN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Devlin, Judge.
Proceeding by Michael Devaney and others to review a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven granting Vito Migliaro permission to use, for a restaurant, certain premises in a residence district. From a decision for plaintiffs, Migliaro appeals and plaintiffs move to erase the appeal.
Motion denied.
David M. Richman, of New Haven, for plaintiffs (appellees).
Thomas R. FitzSimmons and Harold C. Donegan, both of New Haven, for Vito Migliaro (appellant).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
In the view we take of the principal issue, the result will be the same whether we deny one or the other of these motions. We choose to deal directly with the motion to erase the appeal.
This action came to the Court of Common Pleas as an appeal by certain property owners from a decision of the board of zoning appeals of New Haven permitting Vito Migliaro to use, for a restaurant, the lower floor of a building in a Residence B District. The court sustained the appeal. Migliaro filed an appeal to this court from that judgment. The plaintiffs seek to have it erased on the ground that he is not a party to the action.
The appeal was brought to the Court of Common Pleas in the approved form for such a proceeding. Practice Book, Form No. 581. It was in the general form of a petition to the court, reciting the names of the appellants and stating that it was an appeal from the board of zoning appeals; and it then alleged the facts which were the basis of its claims for relief and stated these claims. To it was appended a direction to the sheriff or other proper officer to summon the board and Migliaro to appear before the court on a day certain to answer the appeal. Service in accordance with this direction was made on Migliaro. In a proceeding of this nature, it is the summons attached to the complaint and its service which brings the persons named into court as parties defendant to the action. Leavitt v. Leavitt, 135 Mass. 191, 192. Migliaro was a party to the action in the Court of Common Pleas and, therefore, entitled to appeal.
In the interest of proper practice, we add that, as relief granted to the plaintiffs on the appeal would necessarily result in the invalidation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives of City of Stamford
...to the applicant by the zoning board. Kuehne v. Town Council, 136 Conn. 452, 462, 72 A.2d 474 [1950]; Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 218, 220, 43 A.2d 304 [1945].' Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 187, 190-91, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); see also Shulman v. Zoning Bo......
-
Leventhal v. Michaelis
...Conn. 182, 120 A.2d 550; Kuehne v. Town Council of Town of East Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 72 A.2d 474; Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, City of New Haven, 132 Conn. 218, 43 A.2d 304); Illinois (Winston v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Peoria County, 407 Ill. 588, 595, 95 N.E.2d 864 [but note......
- Devaney v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of City Of New Haven
-
Fong v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...to the applicant by the zoning board. Kuehne v. Town Council, 136 Conn. 452, 462, 72 A.2d 474 [1950]; Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 218, 220, 43 A.2d 304 [1945]." Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 187, 190-91, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); see also Shulman v. Zoning Bo......