Micone v. City of Middletown

• Decision Date: 03 March 1930
• Citation: 110 Conn. 664,149 A. 408
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MICONE v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN.

149 A. 408

110 Conn. 664

MICONE v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 3, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.

Action by Felice Micone against the City of Middletown, to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff's real estate caused by the elimination of a grade crossing in the City of Middletown, was tried to the court.Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellant.

Leonard O. Ryan, of Middletown, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

HINMAN, J.

The plaintiff owns land with a house thereon on the corner of Portland and Bridge streets, in Middletown, and for ten years or more has conducted a small store, using the remainder of the house as a dwelling.Prior to the changes complained of in this action, Bridge street was a portion of the main highway between Middletown and points north and east, and a large amount of traffic passed through it.There was a railroad crossing at grade across Bridge street.In 1925 the Public Utilities Commission ordered the elimination of this crossing, and this eventually was accomplished by opening a new street, called Hartford avenue, passing under the railroad tracks some distance south of the former Bridge street grade crossing and of the plaintiff's premises.By reason of this change, Bridge street became a cul-de-sac, because of a high retaining wall for Hartford avenue, at a point a considerable distance south of the plaintiff's premises, cutting off access from Bridge street to Hartford avenue, except by a stairway in the wall.Through traffic now passes along Hartford avenue instead of Bridge street, and the only route from plaintiff's premises to the main street of Middletown is by way of Portland street and St. John's street instead of by the former shorter alternative course through Bridge street.

The finding states that no portion of the highway either of Bridge street or Portland street abutting the property of the plaintiff has been vacated, changed, or altered, nor has any portion of plaintiff's land been taken, and no change of grade has been made in Portland street, nor has any portion of it been vacated, nor has any change of grade or vacation been made in Bridge street adjacent to the plaintiff's premises.The changes complained of have not resulted in the closing, obstructing, or impairing the highway adjacent to plaintiff's premises, nor has the grade, character, or serviceability of the street at that point been affected.Access to and egress from his land can be freely had on good city streets.The only effects of the changes upon the plaintiff's property...