Leydon v. Greenwich
Decision Date | 16 May 2000 |
Docket Number | (AC 18628) |
Citation | 750 A.2d 1122,57 Conn. App. 712 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | BRENDEN P. LEYDON v. TOWN OF GREENWICH ET AL. |
O'Connell, C. J., and Lavery and Mihalakos, Js.1 Brenden P. Leydon, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Ralph G. Elliot, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
Mark R. Kravitz, with whom was Suzanne E. Wachsstock, for the appellee (defendant The Lucas Point Association, Inc.).
Philip D. Tegeler, Jody L. Yetzer and Martin B. Margulies filed a brief for the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae.
The plaintiff, Brenden P. Leydon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his request for declaratory and injunctive relief from an ordinance of the named defendant, the town of Greenwich (town),2 which he contends discriminates against noninhabitants of the town as to access to its public parks and public beaches. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the ordinance does not violate public policy or the public trust doctrine.3 We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The town owns and operates a 147 acre park known as Greenwich Point Park (park), which includes a beach area (beach) on Long Island Sound.4 The town's authority to maintain the park is derived from 18 Spec. Acts 103, No. 124 (1919), 27 Spec. Acts 60, No. 71, § 9 (1955) ( ).5 The only road access to the park is over land owned by the defendant The Lucas Point Association, Inc. (association), which in 1945 granted an easement to the town that allowed public access to the park.
The plaintiff, who is not a resident of the town, sought access to the park, but he was denied entry because he could not satisfy a town ordinance that allows only residents or their duly authorized guests to enter the park. The ordinance, contained in the Greenwich municipal code, creates residency restrictions for all of the town's public parks and public beaches.6
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed this action requesting injunctive and declaratory relief. His amended complaint alleged that the town and "void as violative of the public policy of ... Connecticut as set forth in its ... common law, which guarantees access to municipally held parks and beaches for all citizens."
After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that "[t]he plaintiff ... has not provided the court with any authority which even remotely suggests that Connecticut applies the New Jersey public trust doctrine7 to its common law.... [T]he court [therefore] rejects, as applicable to the present case, the plaintiffs public trust arguments....
The plaintiff claims that the court improperly declined to apply the public trust doctrine to the facts of this case and improperly determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the ordinance violates the public trust doctrine or the public policy of this state. The town counters that the ordinance violates neither public policy nor the public trust doctrine, and that the public trust doctrine is inapplicable here because it does not exist in Connecticut.8 The town further asserts, alternatively, that the legislature abolished the doctrine, as to the town, through the act. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Our analysis begins with a discussion of our standard of review. Whether the public trust doctrine should have been applied to the facts of this case is an issue of law subject to de novo review. As to the claim of sufficiency of evidence, we review the proceedings of the trial court and "reverse or modify the decision of the trial court . . . if we determine that . . . its decision is ... erroneous in law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ormsby v. Frankel, 54 Conn. App. 98, 109-10, 734 A.2d 575, cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 926, 738 A.2d 658 (1999). To resolve the plaintiffs claim, we address three questions of law. We must determine whether (1) the public trust doctrine exists in this state to the extent propounded by the plaintiff, (2) the court improperly declined to apply the doctrine to the facts of this case and (3) the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish that the ordinance violates public policy or the public trust doctrine.
The plaintiff claims that because he is a resident of this state he is entitled to access to the park, including the beach area, regardless of the fact that he is not a resident of the town. We agree.
For almost two centuries, our Supreme Court has discussed the concept that land held by a municipality as a public park or public beach is held for the use of the general public and not solely for use by the residents of the municipality. See Hayden v. Noyes, 5 Conn. 391, 397 (1824) ( ); Merwin v. Wheeler, 41 Conn. 14, 24 (1874) ( ); Hartford v. Maslen, 76 Conn. 599, 611, 57 A. 740 (1904) ( ); Dawson v. Orange, 78 Conn. 96, 119, 61 A. 101 (1905) ( ); Orange v. Resnick, 94 Conn. 573, 581, 109 A. 864 (1920) ( ); Conners v. New Haven, 101 Conn. 191, 194, 125 A. 375 (1924) ( ); Epstein v. New Haven, 104 Conn. 283, 284, 132 A. 467 (1926) ( ); Winchester v. Cox, 129 Conn. 106, 111, 26 A.2d 592 (1942) ( ); Fenwick v. Old Saybrook, 133 Conn. 22, 29-30, 47 A.2d 849 (1946) ( ); Hiland v. Ives, 154 Conn. 683, 690, 228 A.2d 502 (1967) ( ); Torrington v. Coles, 155 Conn. 199, 201, 230 A.2d 550 (1967) ( ); Stradmore Development Corp. v. Commissioners, 164 Conn. 548, 551, 324 A.2d 919 (1973) ( ); Luce v. West Haven, 238 Conn. 687, 691, 680 A.2d 259 (1996) (Berdon, J., concurring) ( ). These cases clearly reflect that land held by a municipality as a public park or public beach is for the benefit of all residents of this state. We refer to this right as the public trust doctrine,9 and hold that it does not allow a municipality to discriminate between its residents and nonresidents with regard to access to a public park or public beach.10
Having determined the scope of the public trust doctrine as it exists in Connecticut, we must next decide whether the court improperly declined to apply the doctrine to the facts of this case. The plaintiff argues that it was improper for the court to decline to apply the doctrine here, whereas the defendants assert that the doctrine is inapplicable in this case because the legislature abolished the doctrine, as to the town, through the act. We agree with the plaintiff.
Although the town contends that the act is beyond our scope of review because the plaintiff has not challenged its validity, we are compelled nevertheless to review the scope of the act because the town has made it an issue.11 Because the plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the act, we will assume, without deciding, that the act is constitutionally valid. United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, 179 Conn. 627, 641, 427 A.2d 830 (), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 801, 101 S. Ct. 45, 66 L. Ed. 2d 5 (1980). Thus, we need determine only whether the town's reading of the act— i.e., that the legislature abrogated the common lawpublic trust doctrine through its passage—is correct.12 We begin our analysis of the act by noting that statutory construction is a question of law, and our review, therefore, is plenary. Davis v. Norwich, 232 Conn. 311, 317, 654 A.2d 1221 (1995). Although the legislature may eliminate a common-law right by statute, the courts will not lightly impute such an intent to the legislature. Munroe v. Great American Ins. Co., 234 Conn. 182, 187, 661 A.2d 581 (1995). We do not read statutes to depart from the common law without a clear indication of legislative intent to do so. Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 229 Conn. 500, 515, 642 A.2d 709 (1994). A statute should not be construed as altering the common law unless the intent to do so is fairly expressed in the statute. Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360, 382, 665 A.2d 1341 (199...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leydon v. Greenwich
...in trust for the benefit of the general public and not solely for the use of residents of the municipality. Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App. 712, 719, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000). The Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff; id., 7......
-
State v. O'NEIL
...to depart from the common law without a clear indication of legislative intent to do so." (Emphasis added.) Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App. 712, 721, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000), rev'd in part on other grounds, 257 Conn. 318, 777 A.2d 552 (2001), citing Elliot v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 229 Conn. ......
-
Thalheim v. Greenwich
...reversal of an order of the trial court sanctioning him for filing an amicus brief in the underlying matter; see Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App. 712, 750 A.2d 1122, cert. granted, 254 Conn. 904, 905, 755 A.2d 881, 882 (2000); Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App. 727, 750 A.2d 492 (2000); w......
- Breiner v. State Dental Commission
-
2001 Connecticut Appellate Review
...23 225 Conn. 782, 626 A.2d 719 (1993). 24 257 Conn. 318, 777 A.2d 552 (2001). 25 Id. at 333 n.20. This footnote is an eyecatcher. 26 57 Conn. App. 712, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000). 27 257 Conn. 429, 778 A.2d 77 (2001). This was the only case of the year decided on a reservation under Practice Book......
-
2000 Connecticut Appellate Review
...(2000). 115 56 Conn. 298, 742 A.2d 1276 (2000). The authors represent the defendant. 116 58 Conn. App. 267, 753 A.2d 415 (2000). 117 57 Conn. App. 712, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000). 118 State v. Miranda, 252 Conn. 935, 936, 747 A.2d 5 (2000); State v. Lipscomb, 254 Conn. 932, 761 A.2d 756 (2000); L......
-
The Remarkable Tenure of Justice Richard Palmer
...Corporation et al, 292 Conn 1, 970 A.2d 656 (2009). [59] 257 Conn. 318, 777 A.2d 552 (2001). [60] Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App 712, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000). [61] 237 Conn. 284, 677 A.2d. 917 (1996). [62] Troupe was not our Supreme Court's last utterance on the constancy of accusation rule......