DocketNumber: No. 530926
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2666
Judges: HURLEY, J.
Filed Date: 3/17/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiff, Resources Pension Shares 5, Limited Partnership (Resources Pension), instituted this one count complaint against four defendants, the Town of Groton Office of the Tax Assessor, the Town of Groton Office of the Town Clerk, the Town of Groton Board of Tax Review, and Richard D. Haviland in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board of Tax Review (collectively as Groton).
The plaintiff alleges that the five properties were assessed by Groton at $4,863,250 on the October 1, 1993 Grand List. This assessment represents 70% of the full 100% value. Resources Pension alleges that this 70% assessment, representing a current market value of $6,947,500, is "grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful." The plaintiff seeks to have Groton reduce the assessment to 70% of the CT Page 2667 property's current market value.
Currently before the court is the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Groton argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because General Statutes §
"Summary judgment procedure is an attempt to dispose of cases involving sham or frivolous issues in a manner which is speedier and less expensive for all concerned than a full-dress trial." Plouffe v. New York, N.H. H.R. Co.,
"Once the moving party has presented evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue. Bartha v. Waterbury House WreckingCo.,
These facts are not in dispute. The defendant town conducted its most recent decennial valuation of real property in 1992. The result of this valuation, as it affected the plaintiff's Groton property, is as follows:
ADDRESS VALUE ASSESSMENT
646 Long Hill Road $2,998,400 $2,098,880 652 Long Hill Road 215,400 150,780 688-698 Long Hill Road 1,829,300 1,280,510 714 Long Hill Road 1,462,100 1,023,470 720 Long Hill Road 442,300 309,610 --------------------- $6,947,500 $4,863,250 =====================
On October 1, 1992, when Groton conducted the above valuation and assessment, the property was owned by Groton Shopping Associates. Groton used the 1992 figures to determine the assessment on October 1, 1993 and Groton Shopping Associates did not appeal. See Pauker v. Roig,
The case of Ralston Purina Co. v. Board of Tax Review;
The plaintiff, in its memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, offered no evidence, affidavits or other supporting documentation substantiating its claim that Groton's assessment and valuation is "grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful." Nor has the plaintiff argued that the property in question has changed in any way since its original valuation and assessment in October 1992.
As a matter of law, the plaintiff is not entitled to an interim revaluation and reassessment based on the current market value of the property. Therefore, the court hereby denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Hurley, J.