DocketNumber: File No. 92973
Citation Numbers: 324 A.2d 773, 31 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 31 Conn. Supp. 129, 1974 Conn. Super. LEXIS 238
Judges: MISSAL, J.
Filed Date: 7/3/1974
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant has brought to the attention of this court the case of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission,
The plaintiff contends that this is not an ordinary administrative appeal because of paragraphs in the complaint which allege that in a prior action in the New Haven Superior Court the constitutionality of the actions of the defendant has been questioned, that the actions of the defendant could only be the result of prejudice and discrimination against the plaintiff, that the defendant is illegally appointed and did not comply with the statutes, and that the zoning ordinance is invalid because of a lack of a comprehensive plan. *Page 130
Although these contentions of the plaintiff are not ordinary, a careful study of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission, supra, brings this court to the conclusion that discovery is not the proper remedy for the plaintiff to prove his allegations.
The defendant's objection to the motion for disclosure is sustained.