DocketNumber: No. 108604
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6618, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 417
Judges: BOOTH, J.
Filed Date: 12/13/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Although that "complaint" is unusual in form, it can be read as purporting to be an appeal pursuant to §
At one time or another, the Taftville Reservoir Preservation Group appears to have claimed that the plaintiff was either the group, which is an unincorporated association, or Brian CT Page 6619 Chmielecki or Maurice Fontaine or the aforementioned Lucinda Babour.
Whatever the argument may have been, concerning any of the named individuals, the only plaintiff named in the body of the original "complaint" is Taftville Reservoir Preservation Group.
On October 28, 1996, the Preservation Group filed a pleading headed "Motion to Modify Interim Order." On November 15, 1996, this court granted the motion with the following order:
"ORDERED that plaintiff is to file its revised complaint clearly delineating the
8-8 and section22a-19 claims within the time originally set forth by the court and that each party shall include in its brief on jurisdiction discussion of the validity of the8-8 and section22a-19 claims."
The Preservation Group's "revised complaint" dated November 11, 1996, and filed in the court on November 15, 1996, identifies the plaintiff as the "Taftville Reservoir Preservation Group," ("TRPG").
It thus appears to the court that the TRPG has abandoned any claim that there is any plaintiff/appellant in this case other than the TRPG. The TRPG describes itself in the "revised complaint" as a voluntary association of concerned citizens and Norwich land owners working to preserve and maintain the integrity of the Taftville Reservoir in its adjoining woodlands and wetlands as a viable and productive habitat.
The Section
In order to bring an appeal from the doings of the City Planning Commission, the plaintiff must be a "aggrieved person" as that term is defined in §
The plaintiff makes no clear claim of classical aggrievement CT Page 6620 as that term is defines in Hughes v. Town Planning Commission,
". . . has a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community and that (he or she was) specifically and injuriously affected in their property or legal rights."
Such aggrievement is jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining this appeal. General Statutes §
TRPG appears to be a loose association of families residing in the Taftville Reservoir area. The association does not own any property. There is no evidence that it has any office or mailing address. There is no evidence of any regular meetings and there is no evidence of any bylaws, rules or constitution. The actual membership is likewise problematic.
In Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v.Worrell,
"An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members where: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interest it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) either the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires a participation of individual members in the law suit."
In Rankel, et al v. Zoning Commission of the Town ofMarlborough, CV84-0289971 (judicial district of Hartford, October 18, 1985, Aronson, J.) the court held that a voluntary association such as TRPG has no standing to sue because it cannot show an injury to itself.
Similarly, and for the same reasons that are set forth in this opinion, the Superior Court held that in BucklandCT Page 6621Neighborhood v. Planning and Zoning Commission, CV91-0392953 (judicial district of Hartford, March 31, 1992, Maloney, J.) under virtually the same facts that are before this court, that an unincorporated voluntary association cannot be an aggrieved party in an
The court recognizes that under §
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the Taftville Reservoir Preservation Group is not aggrieved. Since aggrievement is a jurisdictional requirement. The Preservation Group's appeal pursuant to §
The
Section
"Administrative Proceedings. (a) in any administrative licensing or other proceeding, and in any judicial review thereof made available by law, the Attorney General, any political subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity may intervene as a party on the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the affect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state."
The plaintiff argues that it is an association and, therefore, that its appeal is specifically authorized by §
The defendants argue that if a party has not taken appropriate and required steps to become a "legal entity," it may not bring a lawsuit in the state of Connecticut. They rely onIssac v. Mount Sinai Hospital,
"It is elemental that in order to confer jurisdiction on the court, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that he or it must be a person in law or a legal entity with legal capacity to sue . . . not having a legal existence it can neither sue nor be sued."
Id., at 599.
In Issac, the decedent Redgnard Issac died while a patient at the defendant Mount Sinai Hospital. The plaintiff, who was the decedent's daughter, filed a wrongful death action in which she had alleged negligence in the treatment of the decedent by the hospital and others. The plaintiff had alleged that she had been appointed administratrix of the estate of the decedent. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, it was discovered that the plaintiff had been authorized, pursuant to § 45-266 of the General Statutes, to handle survivorship property and had not, in fact, been appointed as administratrix. She was ultimately appointed administratrix in September of 1982. A motion to dismiss was filed which rested on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of §
If the instant appeal pursuant to §
However, in the instant case, the plaintiff is not an estate, lacking legal existence, but rather is a voluntary association. Section
"Any number of persons associated together as a voluntary association, not having corporate powers, but known by a distinguishing name, may sue and be sued and plead and be impleaded by such name . . . ."
The issue facing this court, is whether the application of §
The court finds that since §
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the plaintiff is an association which pursuant to §
It appears to the court that the only judicial review of these administrative proceedings "available by law" is pursuant to §
Nothing in this decision is intended to comment on or rule upon any motion to dismiss or any motion to challenge jurisdiction which may be raised by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, should he choose to become a party of the action.
The appeal pursuant to §
Booth, J.