DocketNumber: No. CV99 0498653S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4801
Judges: SATTER, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/17/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The DMV hearing officer found that plaintiff was the owner of two passenger motor vehicles bearing Vermont registration plates, that he owns a Connecticut motor vehicle operator's license, has been a resident of the state of Connecticut for more than 60 days and operated the vehicles on a public highway in the state of Connecticut.
The plaintiff was ordered to register the vehicles within 45 days of the decision or his Connecticut operator's license would be suspended.
Plaintiff contests the DMV finding on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence produced at the hearing that he is a CT Page 4802 resident of the state of Connecticut, and therefore this appeal should be sustained.
At the hearing plaintiff testified that he lives one hundred per cent of the time on the road, staying primarily in motels, and that he has no legal residence in Connecticut.
The scope of review of an appeal from a decision of the DMV is restricted. Buckley v. Muzio,
On the record in this case, two facts afford the basis for making the reasonable inference that the plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut: (1) plaintiff has a Connecticut driver's license, and as he testified, intends to keep it. A Connecticut driver's license always contains a Connecticut address, so it is reasonable to infer that plaintiff must have had a Connecticut address when he obtained the license. Furthermore, Connecticut General Statutes §
Thus, there is in the record substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding, based on reasonable inference from facts established, that the plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut and to support the conclusion that his failing to register the vehicles containing Vermont plates violated §
As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed.
Robert Satter, Judge Trial Referee