DocketNumber: No. CV93 030 27 55
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6823
Judges: HAUSER, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 6/5/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Previously, the plaintiff brought a zoning appeal against the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Monroe.1 In that appeal, the plaintiff contested the issuance of a cease and desist order. By memorandum of decision dated September 29, 1993, the court, (Fuller, J.), dismissed that appeal. Thereafter, the Board moved for the acceptance of its bill of costs, which was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that "no statutory authority exists for the taxation of costs in a zoning appeal." By memorandum of decision dated January 11, 1994, the court, (Pittman, J.), overruled the plaintiff's objection, stating that "[t]he plaintiff has not contested the amount of the costs sought to be taxed, only the authority of the court to tax them. There is no question that the court has such authority." (Memorandum of Decision dated January 1, 1994, p. 2).
In the present appeal, the Board has submitted a bill of costs in response to which the plaintiff has resurrected the identical objection that was overruled in the previous appeal between these two parties. CT Page 6824
DISCUSSION
"Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is the doctrine that bars relitigation, in a second action between the same parties brought upon a different claim, of issues already determined in the first action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rawling v. New Haven,
In the present appeal, the issue of whether the court is vested with the authority to tax costs in a zoning appeal was "actually litigated" in the previous appeal in favor of the Board.
The plaintiff's objection, No. 114, is therefore overruled.
LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE