Palmieri v. Cirino, No. 25784.

• Decision Date: 23 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 25784.
• Citation: 880 A.2d 172,90 Conn.App. 841
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patrick PALMIERI v. Frank CIRINO.

880 A.2d 172

90 Conn.App. 841

Patrick PALMIERI v. Frank CIRINO.

No. 25784.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 24, 2005.

Decided August 23, 2005.

Vincent T. McManus, Jr., Wallington, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff).

Patricia A. Cofrancesco, for the appellee (defendant).

SCHALLER, McLACHLAN and FOTI, Js.

McLACHLAN, J.

This appeal concerns whether the substitute plaintiff, Palmieri Cove Associates, LLC,¹ has the right to use a beach on New Haven harbor. The disputed beach formed along the western edge of the jetty starting on the plaintiff's property and along the northern boundary of the property owned by the defendant, Frank Cirino.² The trial court determined that the plaintiff has no right to use the beach. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to conclude that the jetty is the plaintiff's real property, (2) determined the boundaries of the defendant's property and (3) found sufficient evidence to support an award of damages to the defendant on his counterclaim. We reverse the judgment only as to the award of damages and affirm it in all other respects.

The plaintiff is the owner of property located at 6-8 Cove Street (8 Cove Street) in New Haven. The plaintiff acquired the property from Patrick Palmieri on October 17, 2000. Palmieri, who is the principal of the plaintiff, acquired the property on December 30, 1998. The property is bounded on the north by New Haven harbor for 100 feet and on the west by the property of the defendant. (See appendix.) The defendant is the owner of property at 1 Cora Street in New Haven, which he acquired on February 7, 2000. The defendant's property is bounded on the north by New Haven harbor for 120 feet and on the east in part by the property of the plaintiff and in part by Cora Street.³ Located west of the defendant's property, and also fronting on New Haven harbor, is property owned by the city of New Haven, known as Lighthouse Point Park. The deeds by which each party holds title include "all water rights, wharf rights and riparian rights and privileges connected with and appurtenant to the above described premises." The entire west boundary of the plaintiff's property is in common with a portion of the east boundary of the defendant's property.

On February 10, 1960, the plaintiff's predecessor in title submitted an application to the state board of harbor commissioners for New Haven harbor (board) for permission to build a rock groin and breakwater (jetty) on 8 Cove Street. The proposed jetty was described in part as having a length of 300 feet running north-south and 160 feet running approximately east-west. As stated in the application, the purpose of the jetty was to protect the property at 8 Cove Street from storm damage, to prevent the docking area from being filled with sand that had been shifting from Lighthouse Point Park and to establish a safe mooring area for small boats. On May 13, 1960, the board granted permission to build the jetty.

The jetty, built between 1960 and 1965, extends 300 feet northerly into New Haven harbor and later was extended in an easterly direction.⁴ Prior to the construction of the jetty, the shoreline in front of 1 Cora Street was rocky with little or no sand beach. The jetty acted as a trap for the sand and, through accretion, sand was slowly deposited in front of 1 Cora Street creating a large sand beach. By 1986, the beach had formed fully on the west side of the jetty and in front of 1 Cora Street. This beach area is now triangular in shape being bounded on the east approximately 230 feet by the jetty, on the northwest approximately 300 feet by New Haven Harbor, and on the south approximately 80 feet by Lighthouse Point Park and 120 feet by the defendant's property at 1 Cora Street.

On November 27, 2002, Palmieri filed an amended complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment settling title to the beach. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking removal of a concrete wall, removal of a portion of the jetty, and replacement of certain trees and fence posts.⁵ The court found that the defendant is the owner of the entire beach, except for a small portion that abuts the property owned by the city of New Haven. The court also awarded the defendant $1000 in damages for the plaintiff's removal of the trees and ordered the removal of the concrete wall. This appeal followed.

I

We first address the plaintiff's claim that the court improperly failed to conclude that the jetty is land and part of the plaintiff's real property, thereby establishing an equal upland claim to the beach. The plaintiff asserts that because the jetty is upland to the beach, he is equally entitled to consideration for apportionment on the basis of the cove method⁶ of apportioning littoral rights.

Whether the jetty is real property is a question of law that merits plenary review. There was not a need for the court to address that particular issue, however, once it made the factual determination that 2440 square feet of the original 300 foot jetty was located on the defendant's property. After making that factual determination, the court concluded that any accretion belonged to the defendant as the owner of the uplands. We therefore employ the standard of review that is customarily used to review factual issues.⁷ "We review the court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.... The trial court's findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the record as a whole.... We cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of the witnesses.... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn.App. 462, 471-72, 823 A.2d 438 (2003).

The court heard testimony from several witnesses regarding the property lines at 1 Cora Street and 8 Cove Street. The court ultimately relied on the testimony of the defendant's witness, James Nagle. Nagle has been licensed as a land surveyor in Connecticut for fourteen years and has performed 300 to 400 surveys. After surveying the property at 1 Cora Street, Nagle prepared a map depicting the disputed beach and the defendant's property. At trial, Nagle identified the property boundaries on the map and explained how he was able to determine the location of the boundaries. The map illustrates how the jetty encroaches over the defendant's eastern boundary line. Nagle's testimony and the map support the factual findings of the court. It is not the duty of this court to retry the facts or to pass on the credibility of this witness. See id. The court was free to accept or to reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of one expert over another. See Koennicke v. Maiorano, 43 Conn.App. 1, 14, 682 A.2d 1046 (1996). The court's factual determination that 2440 square feet of the original 300 foot jetty was located on the defendant's property was not clearly erroneous. Thus, the court's refusal to find that the jetty was part of the plaintiff's real property was not improper, and its conclusion that none of the accretion accrued upland of the plaintiff's property was correct, since all of the accretion accrued adjacent to that portion of the jetty sitting on the defendant's land.

II

The plaintiff next claims that the court incorrectly interpreted the intention expressed in the deeds by applying in its decision a deed description of parallel lines that had been abandoned 100 years earlier and further by failing to consider lines of occupation in interpreting any latent ambiguity in the deeds to the defendant's property. The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly adopted the legal reasoning represented by Nagle's map. The reasoning underlying that map led the court to conclude that the defendant's deed of acquisition was effective to convey to him property beyond the line of New Haven harbor as it was located at the time the description reported on the defendant's chain of title was drafted. Because these claims also address factual determinations made by the court weighing expert testimony regarding the parties' property lines, we employ the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, supra, 77 Conn. App. at 471-72, 823 A.2d 438.

At trial, Nagle testified about how he was able to resolve the location of the defendant's property lines that he depicted in the map. Nagle explained that to determine the boundary lines, he reviewed the deeds in both chains of title back to 1874, located stone monuments that helped to define the actual geometry of the street layouts, located iron pipes and pins set by surveyors and used several maps. Nagle and another of the defendant's witnesses, Thomas Lambert, an attorney, both testified, on the basis of their review of the relevant deeds, that the eastern boundary of the plaintiff and the western boundary of the plaintiff, which is the common boundary between the two parcels, and the western boundary of the defendant are and have been parallel since these properties were created out of a larger property in 1874, and that the common boundary has not changed since 1874. Lambert also agreed with Nagle's opinion as to the location of the common boundary line.

The court's conclusions regarding the defendant's eastern, western and northern boundary lines were supported by evidence introduced at trial and therefore were not clearly erroneous.

III

The plaintiff further claims that the court improperly awarded damages of $1000 on the defendant's claim that the plaintiff had cut arborvitae trees and improperly ordered the plaintiff to remove a common wall originally constructed more than forty years ago and...