DocketNumber: No. 527827
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3354
Judges: AUSTIN, J.
Filed Date: 3/3/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On July 27, 1992, the plaintiff, the East Lyme Zoning Enforcement Officer, issued the defendant a cease and desist order directing the defendant to cease the use of the property as a two-family residence. On September 29, 1992, the plaintiff sent additional notices to the defendant concerning the cease and desist order. Thereafter, the defendant applied for a variance to permit the use of the premises as a two-family dwelling, which was denied on June 2, 1993. The plaintiff again requested the termination of the use of the property as a two-family dwelling, but the plaintiff has failed to comply with such requests.
On August 12, 1993, the plaintiff filed the present action seeking an injunction directing and ordering the defendant to return the dwelling to a single-family dwelling. On November 10, 1993, the defendant filed an answer and special defense alleging that the use of the property as a two-family dwelling constitutes a legal, existing, nonconforming use as defined in General Statutes
On November 26, 1993, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's special defense on the ground that does not apply to illegal uses. In addition, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to strike. On December 13, 1993, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion to strike CT Page 3355 along with a memorandum of law in support thereof.
"A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Practice Book 152." Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,
A motion to strike "admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal conclusions of the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings." (Emphasis in original.) Mingachos, supra, 108. "In deciding upon a motion to strike . . ., a trial court must take the facts to be those alleged in the [pleadings] . . . and `cannot be aided by the assumption of any facts not therein alleged.'" Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v. Grigsby,
The court must construe the defense "in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency." Bouchard v. People's Bank,
The plaintiff moves to strike the defendant's special defense on the ground that General Statutes
General Statutes
[W]hen a building is situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation of a municipality which prescribes the minimum areas of the lot, and when such building has been so situated for three years without the institution of an action to enforce such regulation, such building shall be deemed a nonconforming building in relation to . . . the area of such lot. . . .
CT Page 3356
(Emphasis added.) General Statutes
"`The objective of statutory construction is to give effect to the intended purpose of the legislature. . . .'" Forsyth v. Rowe,
Section
Austin, J.