DocketNumber: No. CV98-033 32 18 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5060
Judges: ADAMS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/11/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
In 1974, the Danbury Planning Commission approved a subdivision application for a property known as "Robinwood Terrace" in Danbury. The subdivision approval was due to expire in 1978. The record owner of the property, Dana Robin Corporation, obtained an extension of the approval until 1983. In 1986, Dana Investment Corporation (Dana), the successor to Dana Robin Corporation and the corporate predecessor of the plaintiff, became the record owner of the property. Dana subsequently appealed Danbury's tax assessment of the property in the Superior Court, alleging that the property should have been assessed as a single parcel rather than one hundred fourteen separate parcels as was approved in the subdivision. On August 17, 1988, the tax appeal was settled pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the stipulation and various oral agreements between the parties provided that Dana would receive all necessary permits from Danbury, thereby approving the construction of the subdivision.
On October 17, 1988, the Environmental Impact Commission (EIC) issued a cease and desist order concerning the construction of the subdivision project. The EIC found that Dana was conducting certain construction activities at the subdivision that constituted a regulated activity without first obtaining a proper permit.1 The last action taken by the EIC with the subdivision plan was on April 12, 1989, where the EIC issued a letter to Dana stating that the cease and desist order would continue to be in effect. The letter suggested that Dana submit an application for a regulated activity with the EIC and that a new soil evaluation and revised plans should be submitted to the EIC. Since that date, there has been no application submitted by Dana or the plaintiff to the EIC, nor have the parties appealed the action of the EIC to the Superior Court by virtue of General Statutes §
On September 6, 1991, Philbury, Inc. commenced a foreclosure action in federal court against Dana concerning Robinwood Terrace. The court issued a judgment of strict foreclosure which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 22, 1995, title to Robinwood Terrace became vested in Philbury, Inc.
On August 30, 1995, Dana filed suit in federal court against the City of Danbury asserting claims of negligent misrepresentation and denial of due process. The court granted Danbury's motion to dismiss, and judgment was entered for Danbury on January 13, 1994. Apparently, no appeal was taken. The plaintiff subsequently filed this action against the defendants on October 2, 1998.
The defendants now move for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations for each of CT Page 5062 the plaintiff's claims; (2) the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (3) the plaintiff's claims under the Connecticut Constitution are not legally cognizable causes of action; (4) the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; and (5) the defendants are entitled to governmental immunity.
"Practice Book §
The defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statutes of limitations set forth in General Statutes §§
Regardless of whether a three or six year statute of limitations is used in the present case, the plaintiff's claims are time barred. The last action of the EIC was the letter issued on April 12, 1989, notifying Dana that the cease and desist order, issued on October 17, 1988, was still in full effect. The plaintiff did not appeal the order to any Danbury agency or to the court. Therefore, the three year limitations period expired on April 12, 1992, and the six year period expired on April 12, 1995. The plaintiff did not file the present suit until October, 1998.
The plaintiff, in its memorandum in opposition, simply asserts that the defendants continued the discriminatory conduct after the cease and desist order was issued in 1988 and, thus, the statute of limitations period has not begun to run. The plaintiff alleges in its complaint that on diverse dates since 1988, Dana has been told by various officials of Danbury that the property would be taken from it and the plaintiff would not have reasonable use and enjoyment of the property out of punishment for its political views and for the tax assessment appeal it instituted against Danbury. The plaintiff's assertions set forth in its memorandum are taken directly from its revised complaint. The plaintiff has not submitted a scintilla of evidence that provides any factual basis for its allegations that a discriminatory act occurred within the statute of limitations.7 The defendants, on the other hand, have shown that there are no issues of material fact as to the date of the defendants' last action concerning the property.8
The continuing course of conduct doctrine also does not apply in this case. The doctrine may toll the statute of limitations where there is "evidence of the breach of a duty that remained in existence after commission of the original wrong related thereto. That duty must not have terminated prior to commencement of the period allowed for bringing an action for such a wrong. . . . Where . . . a duty continued to exist after the cessation of the act or omission relied upon, there has been evidence of either a special relationship between the parties giving rise to such a continuing duty or some later wrongful conduct of a defendant related to the prior act." Sherwood v. Danbury Hospital,
Therefore, the court concludes that the plaintiff did not commence suit within the ambit of the applicable statutes of limitations.9
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all counts is granted.
Adams, J.