DocketNumber: No. 70 11 79
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1634
Judges: BURNS, J.
Filed Date: 2/5/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
a. The alleged actions of the Town is excused from liability by the provisions of Sections
General Statutes.
b. Governmental immunity.
c. Failure to name an individual employee as defendant.
d. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
A further ground for striking the Fourth Count is failure to allege a cause of action under Connecticut law.
The Third Count alleges that the defendant Town acting CT Page 1635 through its agents approved an engineering site plan for a condominium to be developed by the defendant Vono on land abutting that of the plaintiffs', and that the development as approved by the Town caused water to flow on the land of the plaintiff, causing damage.
Section
The approval of a site plan as alleged in the Third Count involves the exercise of judgment, as to conformity with zoning regulations and is therefore a discretionary act. Evon v. Andrews,
Further a municipality itself is generally immune from liability at common law. Ryskiewicz v. New Britain,
Although Section
On the basis of the foregoing three grounds, the motion to strike is granted as to the Third Count.
As to the Fourth Count, the plaintiff cites no authority to give it standing to sue the Town for alleged failure to call the letter of credit, as opposed to the authority cited by the defendant Town. State v. Chauvin,
The motion to strike is granted as to the Fourth Count.
BURNS, J.