DocketNumber: No. CV97 0112305
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5218, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 108
Judges: DiPENTIMA, J.
Filed Date: 4/30/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiff is a used car dealer licensed by the department for business conducted at 52 Truman Street in New London. On October 18, 1996, the department sent the plaintiff a notice of hearing advising him of six allegations that, if proven, would warrant the suspension or revocation of his license. A hearing was held on November 26, 1996, when the department presented witnesses and documents in support of the allegations and the plaintiff appeared, testified and presented documentary evidence. On February 11, 1997, the hearing officer issued findings of fact and conclusions of law finding that the department had proved all six allegations:
1. That the Licensee, on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996, violated Section
14-64 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and therefore is no longer qualified to as a used car dealer applying the standards of Section14-51 of the Connecticut General Statutes.2. That the Licensee violated Section
14-60 (b) of the Connecticut General Statutes on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996, in that the Licensee failed to maintain records for all dealer plates issued to the Licensee.3. That the Licensee violated Section
14-60 (b) of the Connecticut General Statutes on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996, in that the Licensee failed to maintain records for all dealer plates issued to the Licensee.4. That the Licensee violated Section 14-63-3 (d)(e) of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Regulations on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996 by failing to maintain proper facilities, personnel, equipment at the licensed location.
5. That the Licensee violated Section 14-63-42 of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle regulations on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996, by failing to make records available for inspection as required.
6. That the Licensee violated Section
14-65i of the Connecticut General Statutes on or about August 31, 1995 CT Page 5220 through June 11, 1996 by failing to have posted the two signs as required.7. That the Licensee violated Section
14-66b of the Connecticut General Statutes on or about August 31, 1995 through June 11, 1996 by failing to maintain wrecker records as required.
(Return of Record (ROR), Decision, p. 4).1
In this appeal, the plaintiff argues that as to all six violations, the record contains insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's findings and conclusions.
A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review is very limited. General Statutes §
The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
"Substantial evidence exists if the administrative record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Reddenv. Kozlowski,
As to questions of law, the Supreme Court has recently stated that the deferential standard does not apply to a court's review of an "agency's construction of a statute, which is a pure question of law, particularly when the question has not been subjected to prior judicial review." Connecticut Light PowerCT Page 5221Co. v. Texas-Ohio Power, Inc.,
"Judicial review of [an administrative agency's action] is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (General Statutes §, c. 54,
The evidence shows that the department's investigator, Sergeant Howard Koenig, made seven unannounced visits to 52 Truman Street during the period from August 31, 1995 to June 11, 1996. Those visits fell on different days of the week. Sergeant Koenig testified that for each visit he was unable to gain access to the building, he observed no business activity, and there was no personnel on the premises. Other witnesses testified that when they drove by the premises they observed no business activity. The photographs of the premises revealed overgrown weeds and grass in front of the garage doors. The plaintiff testified that he was open for business up to two days a week, except for the two months he spent in Florida and the months of June and July when he sold ice cream at another business location. He also stated that he had no employees.
Under General Statutes §
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the plaintiff violated General Statutes §
There is substantial evidence in the record through the testimony of witnesses and the photographs to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the plaintiff violated General Statutes §
Finally, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the plaintiff violated General Statutes §
As to the remaining findings in the hearing officer's decision, the court agrees with the plaintiff that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the finding as to the posting of the signs in violation of General Statutes §
Despite this court's determination that some of the findings of the hearing officer are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court must sustain the action of the CT Page 5223 department. "Where as here, one of the stated reasons is sufficient to support the action of the commission, then that action should be sustained by the court." New Haven v. Freedom ofInformation Commission,
For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
DiPentima, J.